Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effects of BSE on the Northern Ireland economy. [35380]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The BSE crisis has had a devastating effect in Northern Ireland because of the vital role that the beef industry plays in the overall economy of the Province. Slaughterings are now at 61 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and there have been more than 900 full-time and 260 part-time lay-offs or redundancies in the beef and ancillary sectors. In order to ensure that we still have an industry when the unjustified ban is lifted, we have provided very significant aid packages to farmers, the slaughtering industry and the renderers.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State has detailed the devastating effect that BSE is having on the economy of Northern Ireland. What further steps does he intend to take to ensure that Northern Ireland very soon becomes a BSE-free area, so that the export of beef to the continent and elsewhere can resume? Will he give particular attention to the problems of transferring flagging from holdings to herds so that the difficulties that farmers experience whenever the cattle are changed disappear? Will he also give particular attention to the dreadful problems that the suckler herd men will face two or three months down the road?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question lies in very scrupulous and particular monitoring of the various restrictions that are in place. I will naturally draw the matter of transferring flagging from holdings to herds to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Flagging is a safeguard and not a stigma, and all of us must do our best to see that it is viewed as such. We shall attend to all those who have an interest in the suckler cow premium when the decisions fall to be taken. The premium is of considerable importance to a wide range of interests in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that one of the possible results of the accelerated cull programme is that the United Kingdom would need to import cattle from other countries to replace those that have been culled, and in doing so might inadvertently import cattle with a higher risk of being BSE infected than those they replace? What programme do the Government have to ensure that that does not happen, as I fear that the cure may be more severe than the complaint?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I deal with that question solely in relation to Northern Ireland, where I am happy to say that only about 2,000 beasts are likely to be the subject of the additional cull. If there is any substance in what my hon. Friend foresees as a possibility, it is therefore not likely to be material in Northern Ireland. I shall, however, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture to the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Illsley: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in view of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, there are difficulties with breeders of young bulls and suckler herds. I understand that 850 million ecu is available from the European Union to spend on beef and the beef industry throughout the Union, of which the United Kingdom's share is about £34 million. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that Northern Ireland farmers, breeders and the beef industry will be able to decide how their share of that money is spent in view of the particular problems?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: A noteworthy feature of agriculture in Northern Ireland is the very close and well informed relationship between it and the Agriculture Department. That close relationship is of great value to the industry and to the Government, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will benefit from it.

Education and Library Boards

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on education and library boards in Northern Ireland. [35382]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 25 June that he proposes to bring legislation before the House which would reduce the number of education and library boards from five to three and change the membership of the three new boards to increase the proportion of district councillors on boards from 40 per cent. to 48 per cent.

Mr. Pickthall: Is it not odd for the Government to claim that they are making administrative savings by reducing the number of ELBs at the same time as they are putting aside about £8.3 million for the administration of the nursery voucher scheme and are about to create a new bureaucracy with the incorporation of Northern Ireland further education colleges? Is it not outrageous that a dying Administration are trying at this late stage to push through three items which would be far better put to the people of Northern Ireland at a general election?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I may be retiring, but I am not dying—unless the hon. Gentleman knows something that I do not. The important thing about the proposal is that it is not primarily a cost-cutting exercise, but an exercise in greater efficiency and in directing resources to the classroom. The expected savings from my right hon. Friend's proposal amount to some £2 million, or the equivalent of 90 extra teachers. Parents and children in Northern Ireland will welcome that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State look again at early-day motion 1074, which expresses the objections of all parties in Northern Ireland to the change? Are not the estimates referred to just guesstimates? Shall we really get savings, as a new headquarters may be required? Does he accept that although the proportion of local councillors has increased, the numbers have been reduced?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The location of the new headquarters is very much a matter for consultation, and that remains to be decided. There has been a diligent process of consultation on the separate phases of change. In March 1992, we announced the review and invited the submission of views. From February to June 1993, the document "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland" was produced, which set out the broad options. From April to June 1995, "Proposals for Change" was published, suggesting the four-board model. Objections to that were received, and discussions with local parties took place from October 1995 to January 1996. The system is seriously over-administered and its application to Belfast is inappropriate, as the Greater Belfast area is served by three education and library boards. We must have regard to the need for change in a system that has been unchanged for 20 years.

Security Situation

Mr. Maginnis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [35383]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have taken a number of steps to reintroduce security measures since the end of the PIRA ceasefire and as a result of the widespread disorder that we have witnessed in recent days. For instance, we recalled two relocated battalions soon after the end of the ceasefire, but two further battalions will be deployed over the next few days. Other precautionary action has been taken. We are also talking to the Irish Government about further co-operation on security. We are absolutely determined that Northern Ireland should not slip into the abyss of sectarian violence and we shall do everything in our power to protect the hard won gains of the last 22 months.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the consistent inability of the Chief Constable to consult and liaise at both a professional and a political level has, more than anything else, led to the futile impasse at Drumcree? Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that my party has put proposals on the table which address the long-term interests of both traditions, in terms of parades, and will he assure us that never again will the interests of

decent people from either tradition be sacrificed to the machinations of IRA-Sinn Fein activists such as Brendan McKenna?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I believe that I must deal with questions of this character at this moment in a considered and guarded way, as I hope will all right hon. and hon. Members. I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The question of the march at Portadown and Drumcree has been the subject of more sustained consultation over the past year than any similar event. I reject criticism of the Chief Constable for the decision that he took originally or, in the light of a changing balance of circumstances, for the decision that he has taken today. I am happy to deal further with that aspect in answer to further questions. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman's party has put forward constructive proposals, which have been valuable.
As for the latter part of the question, I do not want to get into particularities. Every effort has been made, most notably by the Church leaders in the past 36 hours, to initiate meetings and consultations between representatives of each tradition at local level. Unfortunately, they have failed.

Mr. Hunter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the events of the past few days have shown once again that communication and dialogue are infinitely preferable to confrontation and hostility, not least in the context of the seasonal marches? Will he confirm that it is his policy to strive to re-create the conditions in which meaningful negotiations can take place between those who are genuinely committed to non-violence and democracy?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend, and I noted with admiration what he said yesterday about the balance that has to be struck. As the Church leaders have said today, a resolution has to be found, not just for the short-term problems at Drumcree, but for the long-term issue of how the deeply rooted traditions of marches can better be handled in future, perhaps by reference to agreed criteria and guidelines. The Government will consider that closely in the next few days.

Mr. Hume: Given the Secretary of State's correct support and the Prime Minister's correct support for the decision of the Chief Constable on Sunday about the march at Drumcree, and given the events of the past four days—widespread intimidation, attacks on people's homes, businesses and churches, and blockages of airports, harbours, towns and roads—how can the Secretary of State explain today's disgraceful decision to surrender to the people who have been engaged in such activities over the past four days? Can he tell me whether he himself or the Government had any role in that surrender and change of opinion?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I reject the notion of surrender. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will perhaps have heard from what the Chief Constable has said publicly this afternoon, no political pressure of any kind was put on the Chief Constable which might have led to his decision today—any more than there was for the


decision, which the hon. Gentleman has just applauded, on 6 July. Those are operational matters for the Chief Constable and must remain so.
As for the character of the decision taken today, I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect that the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which is the legislation for Northern Ireland as approved by Parliament, requires that, whenever the Chief Constable considers whether to exercise his powers to direct the conduct of a march, he should balance one risk against another. There is no doubt that in some circumstances the risk of serious public disorder if a march goes ahead must be balanced against the risk of serious public disorder if it does not. The balance has to be examined and struck in the light of changing circumstances. That balance shifts. In the judgment of the Chief Constable the balance had shifted today and it led to his rescinding the order that he originally made.

Mr. Brazier: In considering the security situation, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what progress has been made in finding the bombers who perpetrated the horrendous events in Manchester? Whatever other circumstances may be crucial in achieving security and peace in the long term in Northern Ireland, does he agree that the finding, trying, convicting and punishing of those who have carried out such horrendous attacks on both sides of the Irish channel and both sides of the Irish border must play an important part?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend. Very intensive investigations, and not unfruitful ones, are taking place and will continue, I am glad to say, in relation to those horrifying and deeply wicked crimes. It is essential that people should be brought to justice who seek to advance their political objectives by means of hideous crimes.

Mr. Stott: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on whether he believes that those of us who are elected to this House, and particularly those people who lead parties in this House, should have regard to the fact that one of Her Majesty's loyal chief constables made a decision purely on operational, policing matters four days ago? Will he join me in reinforcing the message to a particular individual who leads a party that he should have more regard for the Chief Constable's decision than he has had in the past?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I began by imposing upon myself a certain measure of restraint this afternoon. It is important that no one today is in the business of pointing fingers or allocating blame or responsibility. It is absolutely right, as the hon. Gentleman said, that that original decision was taken on operational grounds. We did not hear anything at that time about the Chief Constable's having surrendered to mob rule—at least, I did not hear it myself. Today, that decision has been lifted, again on purely operational grounds. We all ought to recognise the enormously difficult and very lonely role that the Chief Constable has to play, as well as the enormously demanding role that the Royal Ulster Constabulary that he leads with great distinction has played in recent events.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the consistent lesson of the troubles has been

that, if efforts to reconcile the minority to the democratic institutions of the British state and the authority of the Crown are taken too far, the majority is alienated? Is not that alienation an even greater danger, inasmuch as the people who are alienated are those who are basically loyal and wish to uphold the state and the rule of law?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in our affairs for a long time, that alienation is an ever-present danger. Of course I agree that, almost by definition, taking anything too far is dangerous. We have to encourage parity of esteem and a balancing of the perfectly proper hopes, aspirations and fears of one side of the community against those of its counterparts. That is what we try to do.

Mr. Alton: While I recognise the invidious position of the Chief Constable, does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that the combination of confrontation and subsequent capitulation is bound to send the wrong signals to the minority community in Northern Ireland, because it undermines respect for the law and the law enforcement agencies? Does he also agree that, in this day and age, for anyone to parade and march through other people's communities is deliberately inflammatory and triumphalistic, stirs up old hatreds and should have no place in a civilised age?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: On the first part of the question, I do not think that the language of capitulation is consistent with the nature of the decision that the Chief Constable has to take. As I have tried to describe, it is a question of balancing risk. The House, by legislating as it has, has recognised that there is always a balance of risk to be made. In those circumstances, to describe it as capitulation today might just as well, I suppose, have led the hon. Gentleman to speak of capitulation on 6 July. It is inappropriate language. It is a striking of a balance in the light of changing circumstances.
On the question of marching, I have already said that the practice is deeply rooted and the issue is enormously difficult. I warmly agree with the Church leaders who have said now and previously that the issue must be addressed. There is common ground, because everyone believes that we must not continue, year after year, going through these tortures.

Mr. Worthington: I fully agree with the Secretary of State that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army are put in an impossible situation, year after year, because of marches and parades. Does he share our support for the work that they have done in the past week in impossible circumstances? Will he further join me in supporting those residents of the Garvaghy road and some in the Orange Order who want to negotiate and not force their way to the future? Surely we must now establish an independent commission, supported by all the democratic parties in the House, to find a way to allow peaceful parades which do not seek to intimidate and threaten. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now set up that commission?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to the RUC and the military, which is well deserved. Equally, I share his tribute to those who have tried, in his striking phrase, to


negotiate and not force their way into the future. That has to be the way forward for that uniquely divided community and I am quite certain that it is within their power.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken about a commission, or something of that character, and I agree with the Church leaders and those who speak of the need for an early review—an immediate review—of the way in which we consider such matters. As I have already said, there must be guidance. We shall therefore be looking sympathetically and urgently at some means by which an independent and external eye can be cast upon the matter with a view to making recommendations.

Peace Process

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [35384]

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process. [35388]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Since 12 June, each of the participating political parties has affirmed total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. With the British and Irish Governments, they have been conferring on important procedural issues under the impartial chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell, supported by General de Chastelain and Prime Minister Holkeri.
Good progress is being made in establishing a negotiating framework which is acceptable to the participants—an essential preliminary to considering the substantive political issues.

Mr. Winnick: Arising from present events, is the Secretary of State aware that, although most people in Britain understand the role of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and have no desire to see that association come to an end, the same people find it almost impossible to believe that, year after year, there should be such deeply sectarian marches and demonstrations, which serve no purpose whatever? Bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's previous experience, is it not the case that the police in the rest of the United Kingdom would not allow such marches, which would create community, racial and religious tensions? I hope that that point will be borne in mind.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is worth remembering that last year there were 3,000 marches in Northern Ireland, of which no more than 13 gave rise to any disorder. The lesson there is surely that, where marches can be negotiated, brokered and discussed, a balance is achieved between two opposing interests—the right to march and the right not to feel intimidated or oppressed. The record is 3,000 to 13, and I believe that we can do a lot better.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all the work that he has done, and will do in his remaining period as Secretary of State, and particularly for his current attempts to recover the momentum of the peace process. We wish him well.
Further to the previous exchanges, notwithstanding what my right hon. and learned Friend said about police decision making, does he accept that yesterday's events in particular have caused serious misapprehension among the nationalist and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland? There appears to have been an abrupt change of policy without proper explanation, and I think that that has alienated many Catholics who were committed to the peace process. It has also caused anxieties in the Catholic communities in England and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that some Catholic households in the areas surrounding the march stand-off were intimidated by Protestant thugs who were involved in and on the fringes of the marches? That must stop before there can be real peace.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am naturally grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. I hope to go on doing my job for as long as I can—and I hope that someone is listening.
There was misapprehension—and also apprehension—when the original decision was made by the Chief Constable on 6 July. There was apprehension in pro-Union quarters, and I do not doubt that there is now apprehension in nationalist quarters. It is therefore important to heed what the Chief Constable himself said this afternoon—that the decision was made because the risk was so great. In other words, the balance that he had to strike had shifted since 6 July. He said that there had been no political influence or interference of any kind. That is why the decision was made.
It is also necessary to heed the fact that recent violence has not been on one side only. Officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary have also been driven from their homes.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I will ignore the contemptible question from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and concentrate on the future. As we look ahead to the resumption of all-party talks, does the Secretary of State recognise the contribution that the Ulster Unionist party has made to their success so far? Does he agree that the mere resumption of a ceasefire is not sufficient passport for Sinn Fein-IRA to enter the multi-party talks, and that the main issue which lies ahead is the decommissioning of illegal firearms? Must there not be agreement on the process for that, and honouring of decommissioning as well?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are looking forward to the resumption of the all-party talks, and that they will be there. That is extremely important.
I certainly acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman's party played a very constructive part at a very difficult stage after 10 June in ensuring that the talks did not go straight into the sand. As for Sinn Fein, both Governments have insisted that the first requirement is for it to bring about a total and unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. All parties, and both Governments, agree on that. As the Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, has said in the past, it must be made absolutely clear—and Sinn Fein must find the means of satisfying the rest of us—that this time it is irrevocable and will not be unravelled. After that, the same conditions will apply to Sinn Fein as apply


to all other parties. It must sign up to the Mitchell principles and, at the outset, still address the question of decommissioning of arms.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that peace in a democracy requires tolerance and understanding of the convictions of others? It comes ill from those who support marches by trade unions and other pressure groups to suggest that it is wrong for others to march.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend points to the need for consistency and balance and, above all, for an even-handed approach in the exercise of such powers as the forces of law and order and the Chief Constable of the RUC have in ensuring that the rights of all people, although they may conflict with other rights, are equally and equitably addressed, enforced and protected.

Mr. Mallon: Is there not something very sad about the Secretary of State in the present circumstances coming to the Dispatch Box and hiding behind the Chief Constable, who has been jettisoned, and behind Church leaders who tried their best to resolve a problem? This is a Government problem and the result rests with the Government. Does the Secretary of State accept that those marches had nothing to do with who marched up what road but were about whose writ runs in Northern Ireland? His Government were asked that question and they failed.
The other question is, who polices Northern Ireland? Is it the legitimate police force or is it those thugs with sashes who have once again imposed their will upon the whole of the north of Ireland? Will the Secretary of State tell the House and the community in the north of Ireland whether he realises the damage that his Government have done to the peace process over the past week? Does he realise that he has broken faith not just with the Chief Constable but with the Irish Government, the nationalist community and with our party in no less than two days? I ask him finally—

Madam Speaker: Order. So many Members on both sides want to ask questions that it is totally unfair to make speeches and ask long questions. The hon. Gentleman may put one final question to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Mallon: How can anyone negotiate with confidence with a Government who cannot keep their word?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am genuinely saddened by the hon. Gentleman's questions, because I have a deep respect for him, for his courage and for his integrity. I ask him to consider this. He spoke of my hiding behind the Chief Constable, by which I suppose he means that the Chief Constable is not telling the truth when he says that there was no political pressure. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would have preferred the decision of 6 July to be taken by the Chief Constable or by a political Minister.

Mr. Mallon: Who was it changed by?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It was changed by the Chief Constable, as the Chief Constable himself has said. It does not do the hon. Gentleman or anybody else any good unjustifiably to feed suspicions that are apparent to all by

saying things for which he has no evidence but which he believes will feed a particular suspicion if he articulates them. To say that I have broken faith with the Chief Constable is no more true than to say that the Chief Constable was leaned upon either today or on 6 July.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Are there not marches every weekend, in this capital city and in many other cities in the world, which some people find offensive? Is it not an inalienable right in any civilised free society to demonstrate peacefully, whether that involves marching or anything else?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes; my hon. Friend is right. It is an inalienable right, but it cannot be exercised without qualification and that qualification is imposed by a democratic Parliament. That is what has happened here.

Ms Mowlam: I join others in thanking the RUC and its chief for their courage and professionalism over the past four days. I also thank the residents of the Garvaghy road, members of the Orange and those in the House who have sought peaceful mediation. Does the Secretary of State agree that the situation demands political leadership and initiative? One accepts that the Chief Constable is there in terms of public order, but the situation needs public, political leadership.
In that sense, we welcome the Secretary of State's announcement 20 minutes ago that there will be an early review of marches—he said that an "independent eye" would be cast over the situation. Does that mean the independent commission that we asked for six months ago and that he rejected in June? If not, what does it mean for the months and years ahead? Will he join me in a shared desire not to heighten tensions further, but to perform the duty of the House and condemn all who seek to undermine the rule of law through the exercise of might and intimidation in Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her tribute to the police and to the Army. As to the "independent eye" being cast on the question of how the right to march may best be regulated, I have in mind a general review that will make recommendations. The earlier suggestion included limiting that to some body that would exercise jurisdiction, and there are serious difficulties about that in terms of ministerial responsibility and the Chief Constable's responsibility. I have already dealt with the last part of her question. It is important that we do not, any of us, behave or speak in a way that heightens tension at this time.

Mr. Nicholls: As somebody who was brought up as a Roman Catholic, and by an Irish Roman Catholic at that, I find it both patronising and insulting that anyone would suggest that, simply because one is a Roman Catholic, one would want to stop people of a different tradition demonstrating peacefully. That is an extraordinary remark for any hon. Member to make, and it should never have been made.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am afraid that I am not aware that anyone has made it but, if it had been made, I would warmly agree with my hon. Friend's castigation.

Rail Network

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to expand the rail network in Northern Ireland. [35385]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): There are no plans to expand the rail network in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Soley: Why does not the Minister give the go-ahead to the Bleach Green line, which he knows will receive 75 per cent. funding from the European Union, leaving us to pay only £2 million? Does he not recognise a good investment when he sees it?

Mr. Moss: The line is used only for servicing purposes and it is not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, up to passenger standard. It would not be possible to meet the original target date for completion, but the commitment to reinstate the line for passenger traffic still stands. We are looking at a cost of £8 million at 1992 prices. We hope to start next year, and it will take 18 months to complete the project.

Mr. Dowd: Will the Minister also confirm that the scope for public investment in the rail system and in Northern Ireland generally is reduced by every pound that must be redirected to security and policing costs, and that all people whose actions serve to increase those costs are sharply decreasing the chances of building the infrastructure that is needed to create the long-term prosperity that is essential to everyone?

Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. I made it myself only the other day in Newry with regard to the health service, in terms of the total money in the block that we have to spend. If we have to spend £1 million a day on security measures, that is £1 million a day that we will not have available for projects of the sort that he has described.

Criminal Trials (Witnesses)

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy toward the paying of witnesses in criminal trials. [35386]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): It is not Government policy to pay witnesses to give evidence in criminal trials.

Mr. Mullin: Were any of the witnesses at the trial of Mr. Colin Duffy in the pay of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? The Minister will recall that Mr. Duffy was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of some extremely dubious identification evidence, and that one of the anonymous witnesses who gave evidence against him was a Mr. Lindsay Robb, in whom the judge expressed total confidence as to his uprightness and integrity, and who turned out to be an Ulster Volunteer Force gun runner. When does the Minister think that Mr. Duffy's conviction will be referred back to the Court of Appeal so that it can be quashed?

Sir John Wheeler: No one is in the pay of the RUC. No one is paid to be a witness before the courts. I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly the case of Duffy, which I understand is in the process of appeal.

British Soldiers (Murder Convictions)

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many British soldiers are currently imprisoned convicted of murder for incidents which occurred when they were on active duty in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [35389]

Sir John Wheeler: There are two. Such cases are subject to the normal, well-established review procedures that apply to all life sentence cases in Northern Ireland. As with any life sentence case, they have been, and will continue to be, considered strictly on their individual merits and in the light of all the available information—including the comments of the judiciary which dealt with the cases before, both at the original trial and on appeal.

Mr. Gallie: Can the Minister advise whether soldiers in such circumstances have been released in the past? If so, how many years did they serve in prison?

Sir John Wheeler: No, I cannot comment on previous cases. All I can say is that each case must be considered on its merits and in accordance with the law and the appropriate judicial procedures that apply to the individual, arising from the jurisdiction under which he was sentenced.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that no soldier, following his conviction and imprisonment for murder, should be allowed to rejoin his regiment? Should not such a soldier, having been convicted of murder, at least be discharged with ignominy in addition to being imprisoned?

Sir John Wheeler: I cannot agree. All cases must be dealt with on their merits. It is a matter of justice that the individual should be considered by the Army authorities in the proper way, in accordance with the circumstances of the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35410]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is representing Her Majesty's Government at an official function with President Mandela.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that it is no longer the Queen's writ that runs in Northern Ireland but the Orange writ? The actions of Her Majesty's Government in the past day compare most unfavourably with the actions of Lady Thatcher who, when she sat on the Government Front Bench, saw down the Orange threat at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the framework document is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question—the framework document is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is generally accepted across the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have done more to bring peace to the Province, albeit that it is sadly disturbed at the moment, than Ministers in any other Administration in modern times.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35411]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend condemn unreservedly the disruption on London Transport being caused by members of the Associated Society Locomotive of Engineers and Fireman and, now, the National Union of Rail, Marine and Transport Workers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action is a complete misuse of industrial power, causes hardship to millions of Londoners and threatens the tourist trade? Is my right hon. Friend surprised that some hon. Members have failed to condemn that disruption, and does he agree that, for Londoners, new Labour has come to mean hard labour?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises important and urgent matters. I am wholly sympathetic with his comments about the plight of Londoners faced with that unjustifiable action. As to persons who should condemn it, I put at the top of the list the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the unions concerned.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister break with tradition and give a straight answer to a simple question? Over the next 25 years, how much rent will the Ministry of Defence pay to the purchaser of the married quarters estate in return for the £1.6 billion estimated sale price?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will have noticed that, faced with the question that I put to him, all that the deputy leader of the Labour party could do was laugh and refuse to answer. On the specific question he put to me, what the House will want to judge is whether it should listen to his strictures or to the advice of the chiefs of staff about what is best for the military services.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister deny the press reports which state that the Government have agreed to pay far more in rent than they will receive from the sale? Is it not a scandal that the Government are keeping secret just how much taxpayers' money they have guaranteed to pay to those property speculators?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has no understanding of how property deals are structured. If he had, he would realise that this negotiation will lead to improved standards for members

of Her Majesty's services and that the minimum guarantees are well below the occupancy levels assumed to prevail throughout that time.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House the truth? This is a bad deal for service families and for the public. It is selling off a national asset at a knockdown price. It is a typical smash-and-grab operation by a Government of spivs.

The Deputy Prime Minister: That is exactly what the Labour party has said about every privatisation measure that we have ever introduced. Every time we do it, we hear this ranting nonsense from the Labour party. Then, when we have done it, the Labour party cannot bring itself to reverse it.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: In the week in which the Father of the House has celebrated his 80th birthday and his 46 years of service to the House, will my right hon. Friend associate himself with the congratulations and good wishes of the House?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has provided me with a most welcome opportunity to pay a fulsome tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has served the House and the country with great distinction for a long time. I say only one word of personal thanks, which is that I am grateful that he had the foresight to recommend my name for the Conservative candidates' list some 30 years ago.

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35412]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that both Houses gave a spectacular welcome to President Mandela because he personifies the struggle against the apartheid regime? Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating those who supported the anti-apartheid movement throughout President Mandela's years in prison? Will he join me in hoping that President Mandela's attitude towards his former oppressors will strengthen and build the new democracy? Does he agree that President Mandela's attitude brings shame to those in this country who gave succour and support to the apartheid regime? [Interruption.]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I would have hoped that the House could have responded to the hon. Gentleman's question. We are talking about one of the political giants of our time and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to a man who, in his behaviour since leaving prison, has made one of the most remarkable political contributions that I have ever seen. To have spent that part of his life in those circumstances and to have emerged with such apparent absence of any bitterness to set about the healing of the wounds in that country with the potential that that


has for not just South Africa but the whole continent of Africa, must be regarded as one of the more remarkable political achievements of our century.

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35413]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the downbeat assessment of Britain's industrial involvements of late by the voice of Labour—sadly not with us today—investment by Lucky Goldstar in Wales, Unipart in England and Lite-On in Scotland demonstrates that UK plc is in very good heart?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I hope that the entire House would want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on securing not only the largest inward investment ever to come to this country, from Lucky Goldstar of Korea, but probably one of the largest inward investments ever attracted into the European Union. It is a huge tribute to the policies of the Government, which are transforming the United Kingdom into the enterprise centre of Europe.
If anybody wants to understand just how out of touch the Labour party is, they might remember the words of the deputy leader:
I don't see much inward involvement flooding in. I see companies flooding out.
That is the Labour party keeping its hand on the pulse of what is happening.

Madam Speaker: Question 5. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am happy to answer the question, if only I can get a chance to hear it in the first place.

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35415]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the Greenpeace campaign to stop industrial fishing for sand eels, which is destroying entire fishing grounds in the North sea, including Wee Bankie, near my constituency? Will he undertake to have this issue raised in forthcoming intergovernmental conference and common fisheries policy talks?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture take the matter extremely seriously and will raise it as appropriate in any international forum.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35418]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has the finest civil service in the world, and that any newspaper reports to the contrary today are entirely bogus? Will he—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Will he endorse the view that the civil service has more important things to do implementing the Government's excellent policies than spending time on the wholly academic issue of a possible Labour Government in the future?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] That is perfectly true. I was aware that the question might be raised, because it had been extensively reported in The Independent as a result of the organised publication of suggestions that there had been politicisation of the civil service by a civil service union— coincidentally on the day when the Labour party is organising a Supply day debate on the subject, so I had done some research.
I understand that none of the cases involving allegations of improper conduct by Ministers has been substantiated, and that no further approaches have been made to the commission to investigate irregularities since its last report. The fact is that the Government created the appropriate machinery to allow civil servants the right of appeal if they felt that they were being asked to do things that were politically wrong. I understand that that machinery is working properly. I see no justification whatever for the civil service union report today when there is not a shred of verifiable evidence contained in it.

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35419]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Canavan: On this historic day, when both Houses of Parliament had the privilege of being addressed by one of the greatest political leaders of this century, will the Deputy Prime Minister appeal to all political leaders in Northern Ireland to stretch out to each other a hand of friendship, peace and reconciliation—just as Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk did to ensure a better future for their country based on the equality of all the peoples, irrespective of race, gender or creed?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks for the House. I would add only one thought, with which I am sure that he would wish to associate himself. It is that President Mandela has done all those things within the context of the rule of law.

Mr. Nicholls: At a time when commuters in London are being given a timely reminder of what life used to be like under Labour in a strike-ridden Britain, does my right hon. Friend recall that, even in the dark days of old Labour, there was never a suggestion that the firing of strikers should be outlawed? Does he recall that new Labour now proposes that it should be illegal to fire strikers? Does that not show that there really are new dangers in new Labour?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised a point that concerns us all. The new Labour proposals for trade union reform envisage changes to give unions powers that they never had under earlier legislation. Beyond any shadow of doubt, new Labour represents new dangers.

Mr. Skinner: With regard to the earlier reference to jobs for south Wales, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much subsidy, in all its various forms, has been paid by the Government to attract those jobs? Was not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for refusing subsidies to the pits, which he then closed a few years ago? If he had kept open those pits by paying subsidies, south Wales would not need so many jobs now.

The Deputy Prime Minister: If I remember correctly—it is some time since I looked at the figures—the subsidies to the coal industry amounted to £19 billion, as a result of which jobs were not saved: they simply disappeared under Government after Government. The transformation now, which the hon. Gentleman cannot live with, is that the mining industry has just had its first ever strike-free year.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motions on the Local Authorities (Contracting out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order and the Local Authorities (Contracting out of Investment Functions).
TUESDAY 16 JULY—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on energy policy, followed by a debate on the role of the voluntary sector in British society. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Damages Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 17 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill.
THURSDAY 18 JULY—Estimates Day [3rd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on British forces in Bosnia, followed by a debate on housing need. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 19 JULY—Debate on science policy and human genetics on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 22 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Housing Bill.
I regret that I am not able to give details of business for the following three days running up to the recess. However, one of them is likely to be the 20th Opposition Day.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 17 July, there will be a debate on methods of trapping wild animals in European Standing Committee A.
It will also be proposed that on Tuesday 23 July, there will be a debate on documents relating to the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Thursday 18 July:

Estimates Day [3rd Allotted Day]. Class 1, vote 1, Defence: Operational and support costs: in so far as it relates to British forces in Bosnia. Relevant reports:

The Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1995–96, (HC 423), British Forces in Bosnia, and the Government's reply in the Sixth Special Report, Session 1995–96, (HC 592), to be published on Tuesday 16 July 1996.

Class V1, vote 1, Housing and Construction, England: in so far as it relates to housing need. Relevant reports:

The Second Report from the Environment Committee Session 1995–96, (HC22), Housing Need, and the Government's reply (Cm 3259).

Wednesday 17 July:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 4198/96, Wild animals: trapping methods. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 51-viii (1995–96).

Tuesday 23 July:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 7833/96, Common Fisheries Policy: Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV); (b) Unnumbered, Common Fisheries Policy: Restructuring of the Community Fleet; (c) Unnumbered, Conservation of Fishery Resources: Technical Measures; (d) Unnumbered, Fisheries Agreement: Mauritania; (e) Unnumbered, Fisheries Agreement: Angola; (f) Unnumbered, Fisheries Agreement: Sao Tomé e Principe; (g) Unnumbered, Annual Report on Multiannual Guidance Programme for the Fishing Fleet at the end of 1995 (MAGP III); (h) 7701/96, Common Fisheries Policy: Satellite-Based Vessel Monitoring System. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a)-(g) HC 5 I-xxv (1995–96); (h) HC 51-xxiii (1995–96).]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. In view of the misleading remark that the Deputy Prime Minister made at Question Time, may I first ask the Leader of the House to confirm that today's debate on the civil service will take place not in Opposition time but on a Government motion for the Adjournment of the House? The record should be put straight.
I understand why on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us full details of the second week's business, as he often does these days. We understand the need to be flexible at this time of year, just before the recess. However, I hope that, during the last few days before the House rises, it will be possible to have a debate on the code of conduct. I think that hon. Members would appreciate the opportunity to deal with that before the summer recess.
Can the Leader of the House give any information about the expected length of the overspill session in October? It would also be helpful for Members on both sides of the House if we had an early idea of the expected date of the Queen's Speech.
On next week's business, may I express my concern about the fact that the Lords amendments to the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill will be dealt with so late on Wednesday evening? Do the Government intend to reverse the sensible amendment on evaluation of nursery vouchers? When I asked the Leader of the House about that matter a few weeks ago, he said that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was taking careful note of the amendment.
Given that that statement was made several weeks ago, what does it now mean? In view of the late hour at which the amendments will be debated, are we entitled to conclude that the timing of that part of our proceedings has been arranged because the Government wish to


minimise the public attention that will be drawn to the flawed idea of nursery vouchers? It is unusual for such a controversial measure to be taken so late in the evening.
On a totally different matter, may I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to arrange for the publication of a full transcript of today's events in Westminster Hall, including the Lord Chancellor's remarks, President Mandela's moving and historic address and, of course, the outstanding response that you, Madam Speaker, made on behalf of us all?

Mr. Newton: It is a pleasure to take those points in reverse order, and to echo without reserve the hon. Lady's warm words about your remarks in Westminster Hall today, Madam Speaker, which seemed to us all to suit the occasion, and Mr. Mandela, absolutely perfectly.
On the hon. Lady's rather more aggressive penultimate question, she will know that proceedings on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill have not yet been completed in another place, and that it is customary for the Government to wait for the completion of such proceedings before making comments about what they intend to do about the outcome of any part of them. As for our taking such a measure late, that may be unusual now, but it is not so long since it would have been highly usual. The reason for the timing, as I have said several times recently, is simply that, unless the House wants to sit into August, we shall have to have one or two days that are longer than those to which the House has become accustomed in recent years. There is no question of our trying to hide anything.
I cannot yet give an exact measure for the length of the overspill, but I expect it to be significantly shorter than in recent years; that has certainly been my aim. I shall of course do my best to ensure that a date for the Queen's Speech is given as soon as it reasonably can be.
The question of flexibility over business interrelates in a way with what I was saying about the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her understanding of the need for flexibility. Of course, if we can release the code of conduct that the Select Committee agreed two nights ago, I very much hope to be able to provide time to debate it before the recess.
Lastly, on today's debate on training in the civil service, I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had no intention of misleading the House, and I confirm that it is a debate in Government time.

Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable public concern about the application by Central Railway plc under the Transport and Works Act 1992? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the matter is disposed of before the House rises for the recess?

Mr. Newton: Indeed. As I said, I am as yet unable to give a detailed idea of the business for 23, 24 and 25 July, but that is one of the matters that I have it in mind to fit in if that is conceivably possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In the spirit of today's events, may I join in the thanks to

the Leader of the House and to you, Madam Speaker, for arranging this morning's events and for your response on our behalf?
May I push the Government to respond in a practical way by announcing—today, if possible—that, when the Asylum and Immigration Bill returns to the House next week, they will take the same view as the House of Lords: that it is not unreasonable to allow someone a few days to make an asylum application? Perhaps they will reflect on the circumstances of people from countries such as South Africa who, in their hour of persecution, needed to find safety in countries such as ours, so that they could return to their own country when it had been liberated from oppression.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider carefully the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, the Government's key priority is to make sure that what I believe is a widely supported policy to deal with abuses of asylum seeking remains effective.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Following that point, while most of us thoroughly support Government policy, the testimony of such people as John McCarthy, who spent five years in the Lebanon, has demonstrated—privately if not publicly—how difficult it is to speak openly within two or three days of arrival. Therefore, a three-day limit would be welcome.
On a different subject—animal welfare—do the Government propose to lift the ban on marine mammal products? Are the rumours about allowing seal products into Britain correct? Is that necessary, or can we support the view of most people across the political spectrum—that we do not want seal or whale products, and that marine mammals should be able to rove the oceans without being persecuted?

Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's first remarks—and those of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—will be noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall draw his second set of remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Why are the Government denying me the opportunity of congratulating them on the splendid news that they are bringing 6,000 jobs to my constituency? When there was a similar influx of jobs thanks to Toyota, there was a statement in the House. May we have a statement now on the news, so that we can join the Deputy Prime Minister in congratulating the Secretary of State for Wales on his year of activity in Wales, the Welsh Development Agency and especially Newport borough council, under the inspired leadership of Harry Jones, who has been working boldly and with great imagination and courage over a long period in order to establish the marvellous site that LG found irresistible?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have an early opportunity to fulfil his ambition of congratulating the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be answering questions next Monday.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, on Wednesday 24 July, we have our


morning Adjournment debates? He will be aware that, for eight years now, we have had one-and-a-half-hour debates in July on Britain's relations with Latin America. To date, this year we have been unable to obtain such a debate, and this is our last opportunity to request one.

Mr. Newton: As I think my hon. Friend will know, because he sometimes makes an excellent contribution, the Wednesday morning of the last day before the recess is customarily one when I am here for three hours and have to answer for everybody on everything.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: It is absolutely in order, Madam Speaker, that I should reiterate the appreciation earlier of your admirable and most moving appreciation of President Mandela this morning. We are most grateful. You spoke for the House in a most brilliant way. But to business.
Is the Leader of the House aware that it really is essential that we discuss our relations with China in this year in which we are going to abandon Hong Kong—quite rightly, because the treaty runs to an end—in which there are elements trying to make worse our relations with China for obvious reasons, and where it is essential that we produce the very best relations we can with this important and very significant country? When can we have an opportunity to discuss our relations with China?

Mr. Newton: The question of a debate on Hong Kong has also been raised once or twice by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I acknowledge the importance of the subject and the interest in it, but one has only to look at the amount of business with which we are seeking to deal for it to be clear that I would be rash to hold out a promise of such a debate before the recess.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be most helpful to have an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the publication of a transcript of this morning's very moving proceedings? I intend to publish it in The House Magazine if he will not make those arrangements. Also, many, many people would be deeply disturbed if the House of Lords three-day amendment were resisted on Monday.

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier on my hon. Friend's latter point. On the first, I was so carried away in my enthusiasm for congratulating you, Madam Speaker, that I forgot about the other part of the hon. Lady's question. I am not honestly sure who would be responsible for ensuring that a transcript was produced. If it is me, I shall try to ensure its production, and if it is not, I shall try to ensure that whoever is responsible ensures it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the chairman of the Tory party answers questions in the House? I know that the chairman has not done so and that he has not got the kind of portfolio which, apparently, enables him to do so, but I would like him to answer this question. Why, after only two years, was the Tory party £19 million in the red, and then, apparently, £26 million in the black? We are all anxious to find out where the money has come from. I would like the

Chancellor of the Exchequer to sit next to the party chairman. The Chancellor is running the country into debt, yet the Tory party is managing to get those funds. The Chancellor ought to be told how to do it. What we would really like to ask is where the money has come from. The Tory party should be made to publish its accounts, because I believe that there is some sleaze money.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the success of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in relation to the Conservative party's affairs reflects the strength of support for the Conservative party in the country, which is rightly strong because it is partly related to the success of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in creating conditions that have brought the largest ever inward investment into Wales, which was referred to earlier.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am absolutely delighted, as everyone else must be, at the enormous success of the Government's policies in attracting huge investment into Wales, but having ascertained this week that Kent has the lowest gross domestic product per capita of any county in the country, could we have a debate on why Wales gets such tremendous assistance and Kent so very little?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate. Although I accept that the investment is not quite the same and in some circumstances controversial, it can hardly be said that, with the significant building of the channel tunnel rail link in Kent, the channel tunnel and Ashford international station, Kent has been short of investment in recent times.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): Madam Speaker, you certainly spoke for the whole House this morning.
I make no apology for raising again this week the issue that I raised last week: benefit for ex-miners for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the matter up but, given that there are only two weeks before the summer recess, will he give an undertaking that it will be dealt with and the costs estimated? Will he ensure that the new arrangements go ahead without anything having to come back to the House? If further approval from the House is needed, will he make sure that that is in hand before the summer recess? Ex-miners deserve that.

Mr. Newton: I cannot, I am afraid, add to what I said to the hon. Lady before. I shall certainly seek to come back to her on the matter before the recess, but I cannot make a promise beyond that.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Can we have an urgent early debate on industrial anarchy in London Underground, given that many thousands of my constituents who work in London and go to the city for leisure will have their lives severely disrupted by the strike that is proposed to take place shortly? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would give all parties an opportunity to condemn the anarchy once and for all?

Mr. Newton: Anything that helped to end the deafening silence from Opposition Front Benchers on that matter would be welcome, but I rather doubt that even a debate would achieve that.

Mr. David Winnick: Is there not a case for looking again at the possibility of a debate on financial contributions to political parties and knighthoods and peerages? Is the Leader of the House aware that a newspaper today stated that a leading industrialist has given £4 million to the Tory party—not as a loan, but as a gift—a couple of weeks after being knighted? Is there not now a case for looking into the possibility of sheer political corruption?

Mr. Newton: The implication and suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is unworthy—even by his standards.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the constitution of the United Kingdom and, in particular, the relationship between Scotland and England? Would not such a debate give us an opportunity to look closely at Opposition proposals that would result in a Government Front Bench largely made up of Scots being here in Westminster, while the Scots ran their own Parliament in Edinburgh? Is that not a case of the Scots having their cake and eating it, while expecting English taxpayers to bake, ice and deliver that cake?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend puts an important point neatly. There is a case for substituting such a debate for either of the two subjects that the Opposition have chosen for next week.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House will be aware that there has been a major shortfall in the Government's revenue targets, which will clearly have a major effect on the Government's economic policy management over the next six months. Is there not a need not only for a statement to Parliament on those matters, but for a full debate, so that we can all learn the gravity of the situation?

Mr. Dunn: We are having that debate next week.

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend points out, the summer economic debate will be held on Wednesday 17 July. That debate is related to the summer economic forecast, published by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week, and it is therefore superfluous for the hon. Gentleman to demand a debate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House and others on your contribution this morning, Madam Speaker? I was delighted to hear President Mandela's warm tribute to my lifelong friend Trevor Huddleston, who has not been well of late, but will have been lifted by those remarks.
Separately, may I ask for a debate next week on housing? I can then raise the awful policy of Ealing's Labour council of removing wardens from sheltered accommodation, causing consternation and distress to a lot of old people, who depend on seeing their warden day after day, to keep going.

Mr. Newton: I have made it clear that, along with my hon. Friend, I am a member of your fan club, Madam Speaker.
I cannot promise a debate on housing, although I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Housing Bill is scheduled for Monday 22 July. I am not sure whether that will provide an opportunity to make the point that my hon. Friend wishes to make.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I gave notice of the subject of my question to the Leader of the House earlier today. I drew to his attention late last night, after the debate, an apparent mistake in the office costs allowance. The report appears to exclude national insurance contributions for staff salaries; the discussions that I have had this morning, with Hay Management Consultants Ltd. and the secretariat of the Senior Salaries Review Body, seem to confirm that fact. Can the Leader of the House assure us that he will take that matter up with the SSRB and that, if my suspicions are correct, he will find time to correct the error?

Mr. Newton: First, I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in mentioning the matter to me informally last night. I know that he has also contacted my office during the day, and my office, in turn, has contacted the SSRB. I do not wish to comment further until I have had an opportunity to consider the issue more carefully.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the probability that the European Court of Justice will adjudicate during the recess and will require the United Kingdom to accept the working time directive, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, before we rise, a Minister comes to the House to lay before hon. Members the options that the House would have to legislate to rectify the situation? Otherwise, the ECJ will set a precedent that would enable Britain's opt-out of the social chapter to be circumvented.

Mr. Newton: I simply remind my hon. Friend of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this day last week. We certainly intend to protect our veto and, indeed, the effect of our opt-out, and that is why we shall seek treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Tam Dalyel1: May I ask a question that by implication could be interpreted as being offensive, but is not meant to be? Cabinet members have some 300 years' experience between them as constituency Members of Parliament. Can we be told, before Monday's debate, whether any member of the Cabinet, as a constituency Member, has become involved with asylum seekers within three days of their arrival in this country? I have, and it is a very chastening experience, because the asylum seekers are extremely confused when they arrive. I wish to know whether any Cabinet member or any Home Office Minister has had that experience in the course of their constituency duties.

Mr. Newton: I do not regard that question as offensive, but it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I am not in a position to answer it. I shall draw it to the attention of those who will reply to the debate.

Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an urgent debate on early-day motion 1106?
[That this House expresses profound concern about the fate of Mr. Robert Hussein following the judgments of a religious court in Kuwait that he is an apostate and therefore subject to a death penalty; calls on Her Majesty's Government to continue to press the Kuwait Government to adhere to international legal norms; and calls on the Government of Kuwait to protect Mr. Hussein, his wife, children and property and to ensure that his religious freedom is fully and effectively guaranteed and protected according to the constitution. ]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite intolerable that someone should be threatened with death simply because of his religious beliefs? My right hon. Friend will remember that Kuwait was liberated, five years ago, by people of all religions and none. It is therefore wrong for fundamentalist Muslims to threaten to kill someone because he has been converted to Christianity.

Mr. Newton: We are aware of and share the concerns set out in early-day motion 1106, and we have repeatedly raised the case at a senior level with the Kuwaiti authorities. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to do what they can.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House has already heard an urgent plea for a statement, before the House rises, on the Government's response to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema. May I remind him that the Secretary of State for Social Security said, on 14 June—in an exclusive interview with the Nottingham Evening Post—that the regulations would be relaxed? If he can tell the press, why cannot he tell Parliament and, more especially, why cannot he reassure miners who have given their lives to secure energy for this country?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) earlier. I shall, of course, bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Barry Porter: I may have missed something—I do not think so—but it appears that we shall not have a discussion about Northern Ireland between now and the recess. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that? It seems an entirely appropriate opportunity to re-emphasise the tripartite support for the political negotiations that are going on, and perhaps to give some much-needed impetus to them. We may not have another chance. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to accede to that request, will he commend to hon. Members an article written by Mr. Ed Pearce—not a noted reactionary—in one of the national newspapers this morning, which explains the history and the purpose of the Orange order? It might bring a glimmer of understanding to some people in this place.

Mr. Newton: We obviously keep under review whether it is appropriate at particular times to have a debate on Northern Ireland, and we shall continue to do so. I must make the obvious point that it would not be easy now to

fit in such a debate before the recess. If I may be allowed to volunteer something—perhaps I shall do it at the end of business questions, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Tony Banks: Madam Speaker, may I, too, thank you for your speech in Westminster Hall this morning, the most moving part of which was the mention of President Mandela walking into South Africa house tomorrow? As someone who was arrested twice outside South Africa house, I cannot wait to see that. It will perhaps be even more moving than the speeches this morning.
As we had a statement from the Prime Minister about the transfer of the Stone of Scone back to Scotland, could we please have a debate on that matter? There is considerable controversy among academics and people responsible for artefacts of great historic importance in this country about the significance of the stone to the coronation chair and its position in Westminster abbey. If we are to start moving around objects of that significance, could we not discuss the possibility of transferring the Parthenon marbles back to Greece? They are far more significant to Greece than to Britain, whereas the coronation chair and the Stone of Scone are of great significance to England.

Mr. Newton: In response to the original thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has an Adjournment debate on that very subject on Tuesday 16 July. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman could negotiate with him a few minutes of that debate.

Mr. Barry Field: Could we have a debate on the provision of insurance against terrorist actions? I ask that in the light of three rather peculiar events. One was the impersonation of a firm of solicitors to my wife in a telephone call recently. Another was a telephone call to a business colleague and friend, which was so odd that he telephoned me about it. As my right hon. Friend knows, because I discussed it with him before business questions, the third is a deliberate act of vandalism to a tyre on my motor car, in what is supposed to be a secure area.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I can concentrate on the last part of the question. If, as I understand it, the damage to my hon. Friend's car took place in the underground car park, that raises significant issues of security, which I shall certainly make sure are examined by the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the Parthenon marbles? I am reminded of being in the peculiar situation a couple of weeks ago of doing a live interview down the line about the marbles and going straight across to Millbank to do an interview about slaughterhouses. It is about slaughterhouses that I wish to question the Leader of the House.
Is it possible to arrange for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House to make a statement and answer questions about an aspect of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis that has never been adequately dealt with in the House, that is, the


operation of the 30-month slaughter scheme? It is scandalous that less than one fifth of the slaughterhouses in the country have been given 100 per cent. of the business in relation to the cull and that, of those, one quarter have 80 per cent. of the business.
There has been no competitive tendering and, even worse, those who are fortunate enough to have been selected for the scheme have negotiated a price per head which seems to be three or four times the market rate that could be achieved by competitive tendering. Not only is that a gross abuse of taxpayers' money, but the distortion of costs is likely to have a disruptive and destructive effect on the meat industry.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can expect my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on that matter specifically. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he is here to answer questions this day week. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to his attention.

Madam Speaker: I think that the Leader of the House wanted to volunteer some more information.

Mr. Newton: I thought that it might be helpful at least to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), although he has had to go, to volunteer some information, because I had done better in advance of being asked than I had realised. I now have a note that informs me that the Vote Office will have copies of the transcript of this morning's proceedings after 6 pm for those Members who wish to collect them. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I press my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House further, by asking whether it might be possible to add that transcript to the Official Report either of the House or of the other place?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps it was a mistake to volunteer that additional information, as it has prompted that extremely awkward additional question. I rather doubt that there is any procedure for adding a transcript of proceedings outside the Chamber to the Official Report of our proceedings. I therefore anticipate some difficulty in acceding to my hon. Friend's request, but you, Madam Speaker, have helpfully mouthed, "We shall look at it," so I take it that that means that you will look at it, and I am very grateful.

Civil Servants (Training)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): The House will welcome the chance to debate the training and development of the civil service. I am sure that the House would expect me also to comment on the press release issued yesterday by the Association of the First Division Civil Servants, which was referred to in the press this morning.
The Government do not accept the statement made by the Association of First Division Civil Servants in response to a survey, described as a political one, among its members. That press release states:
The response we have already received suggests a continuing and widespread problem".
that problem is an
'apparent retreat' from impartiality".
That statement by the FDA is important. I must say that I am surprised at the timing of its release. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred to it at Prime Minister's Question Time. Despite being surprised at the timing of that press release before today's debate, may I put on record that the Government entirely refute any implication that there is a loss of impartiality in the civil service? I am sure that the House would appreciate an explanation of the reasoning behind my refutation.
I am glad to welcome to the Chamber the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I recognise his fingerprints all over the FDA press release, because I believe I am correct in saying that he used to advise it. The timing of that press release, of which I received news only fairly late last night, raises questions about why it had to be released before today's debate.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once I have made my point.
The press reports belie the increasingly typical behaviour of the hon. Member for Hartlepool to exaggerate and seek political advantage.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving way. Will he take it from me as an hon. Member of the House that I had absolutely no foreknowledge of the FDA statement? I had no knowledge of its consideration of the matter at its executive in the morning. The only time I knew about the matter was when I was contacted by the press office of the Labour party with a request that I should comment on the statement made by the FDA. That was at 6 o'clock yesterday evening. Will he accept that?

Mr. Freeman: Entirely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear his involvement in the issuance of that press release, and I accept his comments. That does not invalidate my clear statement that the Government repudiate the allegation made in that press


release, which refers to the "'apparent retreat' from impartiality" and I should like to give the House a reasoned justification for my statement.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Chancellor mentioned the First Division Association. I do not think that he can accuse Lord Bancroft of impartiality. His question of 8 March has still not been answered:
what credible capability will remain … for ensuring the integrity of the systems used by the mass of departmental recruiters—the vital executive and clerical officers?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 544.]
As far as I know, that, like a number of other questions, has never been answered. Not only my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—who was wrongly accused in this instance—but former heads of the civil service are asking questions.

Mr. Freeman: With respect, that is a different issue. With the House's permission, I shall be pleased to deal with it if the hon. Gentleman speaks a little later. The proposed privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services has nothing to do with political impartiality, which is questioned by the FDA. I do not consider it a matter for controversy, but I appreciate that some Members of both Houses may disagree.
Let me justify my earlier comment about the FDA's press release. I remind the House that the Government
is committed to the maintenance of a permanent civil service, based on the values of integrity, political impartiality, objectivity, selection and promotion on merit and accountability through Ministers to Parliament.
That is a quotation from paragraph 2.1 of "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", published in January 1995 as Cm 2748.
Let me give another quotation. All Ministers in the Government are under a duty
not to use public resources for party political purposes, to uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not to ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code".
That is in paragraph 3 of the code, issued on 1 January this year, which itself repeats "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". This Government introduced the civil service code, and we are determined to uphold it.
I refute the allegations for three reasons. Perhaps, in fact, they are not really allegations, but, as a result of innuendo, repetition and dramatisation in the press, amount to allegations. First, my own direct experience of working with civil servants after 11 years in the Government confirms their political impartiality. The FDA's reported findings do not match my experience. That means that I shall want to look very carefully at such evidence as the FDA is able to give us. Sir Robin Butler, head of the home civil service, will meet representatives of the association at an early date in order to understand what the allegations are about.
Secondly, I urge all civil servants to read the code. It states clearly that, when civil servants believe that they are being required to act in a way that is inconsistent with the code, they should follow due process, and report the matter within their own Department, up to permanent secretary level. If they are dissatisfied with the

departmental response, they should report the matter to the independent civil service commissioners. It would be interesting to know how many of the 20 cases referred to in the press this morning have reached the commissioners.
I understand from the annual report of the civil service commissioners that only one case is still to be examined—an allegation of undue political interference with civil servants by the commissioners. It is certainly not true that, if there are 20 cases—as is claimed by the press release and supporting documents—they have not yet reached the commissioners. They should, if there is anything to allege.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if the union, which has no political affiliation with the Labour party—let there be no doubt about that—thinks that there is a problem, to the extent that it chooses to highlight it when it knows that the House of Commons is debating the matter, and chooses to refer to specific cases, that is enough evidence of real unease among a group of supporters of Government procedure who are not in any way political to warrant an answer very different from the one that he has just given?

Mr. Freeman: I hope that the First Division Association is behaving impartially and is politically neutral, and that it intends to continue to do that under Governments of whatever political colour. This is a sensitive area, and I hope that the FDA has no hidden political agenda. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to give way when I have finished the point.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked about the cases that had been presented; but they have not been presented to the civil service commissioners. I have said that the press release and this morning's press comment relate to about 20 cases in a very generalised fashion. If those cases are serious, the people who are bringing them should follow the procedure set out in the code, and the cases should be examined by the commissioners.

Mr. Mandelson: If they dare to.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman says, "If they dare to." We devised the code after long discussions with civil service representatives, to provide a mechanism that would enable civil servants to report any concerns to their permanent secretary through the command chain, not through Ministers, and then to the commissioners. For the hon. Gentleman to imply that somehow there would be ministerial, political interference in that process is unworthy.

Mr. Derek Foster: I detect the beginnings of taking this matter seriously, and that is in stark contrast to the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time, when he said that there was not one shred of verifiable evidence. I understand that he has not yet seen the evidence, so how can he so dismiss it? The First Division Association—the mandarins' trade union if I may put it like that—consists of serious people. I am disturbed that a Minister who is known for his courtesy and consideration should cast aspersions on the FDA's motivations. I urge him to withdraw that, take the matter seriously, examine the evidence and return to the House to make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will read the record. I regularly meet representatives of the trade unions for all civil servants, including the FDA. If the matter was of such dramatic and pressing importance, and if there were cases for which there was clear evidence, I would have expected to hear about them directly, not only from the FDA but from the other civil service unions.
The matter has been raised regularly by trade union representatives, including those of the FDA. To this specific, direct and dramatic issue, my only reaction, which I think is correct, is to say that the right procedure should be followed. I say that for the two reasons that I have already given, which are my direct personal experience and the fact that there is a correct procedure. I refute the allegations.
My third reason is contained in Lord Nolan's report. Paragraph 45 of Cmnd. 2850 states:
We believe that standards of behaviour in the civil service as a whole remain very high … Nor have we received evidence that other important standards—political impartiality or the ideal of public service—are under systematic threat.
More importantly, paragraph 57 of the document states:
From time to time there have been allegations … that civil servants were being asked by Ministers to undertake duties which were not appropriate to their non-political status … No evidence was offered to us that these are other than isolated cases. The existing guidance offered both to Ministers and civil servants has always been clear on the point that there is a boundary beyond which a civil servant should not be asked, or volunteer, to go.
I am taking this matter seriously, which is why I trespassed in the opening part of the debate by referring to it. I have put my position as clearly as possible. It will doubtless be referred to in the debate, and, if I am able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the points not only of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), but of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, if he is going to wind up for the Opposition.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I must make progress.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand the need to make progress, but could we be clear what is being insinuated about the FDA? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) asked the Minister to withdraw his remark. If it was a slip of the tongue, one could understand it, but is something being insinuated about the FDA—or will the Minister say that it has behaved impeccably?

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reflect on my remarks when he reads Hansard. I have nothing to withdraw. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hartlepool wishes me to refer again to the remarks, I said that I hope that the FDA does not have a hidden political agenda. That is a hope.

Mr. Dalyell: That is an insinuation.

Mr. Freeman: Let me explain further to the hon. Gentleman that both the timing and content of the press release are disturbing.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Nonsense.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady says, "Nonsense." I look forward to her contribution to the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: It is deeply offensive to say of the FDA, "I hope that it does not have a hidden agenda". When a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and expresses the hope that the FDA, which represents senior civil servants, does not have a hidden agenda, he owes it to the House of Commons to be a bit explicit about what he means.

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps some of those who contribute to the debate will allow my hope to be vindicated.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I hope that the Minister understands that, just as civil servants do not speak politically for him, we do not speak politically for them, and any views that we may express in the debate will be our views.

Mr. Freeman: Of course I accept that. I am talking about the disclosure of fact, not opinion or anyone speaking on the FDA's behalf. I am not aware that anyone does speak on its behalf.

Mr. Derek Foster: I am sorry to intervene again, but it is clear that my hon. Friends are not satisfied, because the Minister is not prepared to clarify his remarks. The imputation of any hidden political agenda is a serious charge. which is totally uncharacteristic of the Minister. Will he either clarify that or withdraw it?

Mr. Freeman: I will certainly study the text of my remarks. I stick by both the spirit and the detailed letter of what I have said this afternoon. I drew the House's attention to a specific press release issued by the FDA. I will quote it again, and then perhaps hon. Members will allow me to move on:
The response
to a political survey of FDA members—
we have already received"—
hon. Members will know that that refers to about 20 cases—
suggests a continuing and widespread problem.
I have specifically rejected that conclusion in, I hope, crystal-clear language.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the White Paper "Development and Training for Civil Servants: A Framework for Action", which I presented to Parliament on 1 July. This is the first White Paper devoted to the important issue of training and development of civil servants. Its White Paper status reflects the importance that the Government place on this subject.
This country has a world-class civil service. It is respected for the successful series of initiatives being carried through to improve efficiency and effectiveness. These initiatives are implemented, of course, by people. If the civil service is to meet the challenges of continuing improvement in a fast-changing environment, civil servants need the skills, knowledge and confidence to raise performance levels.
I need hardly say that the UK civil service has a long-standing and well-deserved reputation for its high standards of integrity and impartiality, and we mean to keep it that way. In the 1994 White Paper on the civil service, "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", the Government made clear their commitment to maintaining those standards throughout our programmes of change.


This January, we published the civil service code, which summarises the constitutional framework within which all civil servants work, and the values underpinning their role.
The new White Paper on training and development emphasises the importance of civil service core values, and stresses that they should be brought to the attention of new entrants to the civil service at all levels. All civil servants should understand the relevance of the core values to their particular responsibilities.
Overall, the new paper builds on both the recently published third White Paper on competitiveness and the continuity and change White Paper, and brings forward a policy on the development of civil servants. It is evolutionary, not revolutionary—but it concludes that there is a need for a step change in training and development, to raise the skill levels of civil servants.
The development and training White Paper is about the people who work in the civil service and their development needs, which is why I addressed a foreword in the White Paper to all civil servants, of whatever grade. I want them to feel that the paper is of real importance and relevance to them.
The White Paper does not underestimate or denigrate the current abilities and professionalism of civil servants—far from it: I have great admiration for their abilities and their dedication to public service—but the need to raise levels of skills and knowledge is a challenge facing all organisations and all the people who work in them. That applies to the public and private sectors, and it applies within the civil service to all Departments and agencies, large and small. It applies to civil servants at all levels.
I frequently hear concerns expressed by civil servants and those who speak for them that they feel that they no longer have a job for life, and feel threatened by insecurity and change. In this day and age, no jobs—whether in the private or public sector—can be guaranteed for life. All of us in this economy and society are subject to changes unrecognisable and unforecastable 20,30 or 40 years ago. As the Minister directly responsible for the civil service on a day-to-day basis, it is my job to make sure that civil servants can cope with that process of change and uncertainty, by improving their skills, training and development.
I will comment in outline on the main points of the White Paper. The programme for action has three main themes. They are: a strong commitment to the Investors in People standard; a drive to raise levels of skills and awareness; and giving civil servants greater responsibility for their own development and careers, within a supportive partnership.
I am sure that Opposition Members welcome the com-mitment to Investors in People, and that it will be approached on a bipartisan basis. It is the national standard for well managed organisations that develop employees to meet their overall objectives. Investors in People is a hard-nosed standard that, properly implemented, brings bottom-line benefits. The standard is about communication within organisations, with employees and managers understand-ing their roles and responsibilities.

Mr. Dalyell: Page 11 of the White Paper makes the point that
there has been increasing recognition of the importance of effective communication"—

the word "communication" appears in bold type—
with staff—the promotion of genuine and productive dialogue within organisations.
Is it not a question of practising rather than preaching? If the Minister had followed his own advice about communication, how on earth could he have got himself in a tangle with the First Division Association?

Mr. Freeman: I believe strongly in communication, which is why I have regular meetings with members of the FDA and other civil service unions—and will continue to do so.
The Government have set national targets for Investors in People. By the year 2000, we want 70 per cent. of all organisations employing 200 or more staff to be recognised as meeting the Investors in People standard.

Mr. Maclennan: I should be grateful if the Chancellor would bundle the business jargon and explain what he means by "bottom-line dividends", which is a phrase usually used more in respect of balance sheets than the performance of civil servants.

Mr. Freeman: I apologise for the jargon. It is sometimes easier to communicate by speaking directly without notes than by reading a speech. I do not intend to read all my speech.
Typically, the phrase "bottom-line benefits" means what happens in the organisation. It can be expressed financially, and it often is in the private sector. In the public sector, that is less possible, but not impossible. In the jargon, it means that results are delivered. People feel that they are part of an organisation. They are motivated, the managers communicate to them what is required, and they participate in setting their own targets. It is, in my view, common sense.
We believe that the civil service is ready for a more challenging target. Departments and agencies have been committed to carrying forward plans to become investors in people since 1994. We have had some real successes. A total of 12 per cent. of civil servants work in 58 organisations that have gained Investors in People status. I have been impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment within those organisations, and their evidence that it really does improve performance. These range from the Employment Service as a whole—which is an admirable achievement—many Benefits Agency offices, two prisons and five Ministry of Defence units, not to mention the Fire Service College.
Armed with that evidence, I have been encouraging Departments and agencies to give Investors in People a high priority. The response to the civil service-wide seminar I chaired in January, together with information on progress and target dates collected this year, has convinced Ministers in charge of Departments that the civil service has the overall commitment and momentum to go beyond the national target.
The civil service target is ambitious, but, I believe, realistic. It is that, by the year 2000, all civil servants will be employed in organisations which are investors in people. It is an important target, to which the Government are committed. We have also set interim milestones for 1997 and 1998, so that we can check on progress towards our millennium target.
The second main theme of the White Paper is skills and awareness. That is the drive to raise levels of skills throughout the civil service. Properly targeted investment in the training and development of civil servants, in line with the needs of the organisation, is an investment in Britain. Much of that investment will be particular to the needs of individual Departments and agencies, but the White Paper highlights four areas where action is needed across the civil service in support of Department and agency objectives.
The first is the continuing development of a stronger managerial culture. That is the key message of "Continuity and Change", and it carries through to this White Paper.
The nature of civil service work is changing. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich wish to intervene?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I was just wondering whether the Minister, who is, basically, an honourable person.. was going to refer to some great management triumph such as the Child Support Agency.

Mr. Freeman: I have experienced the failings of the Child Support Agency in my constituency. We are all responsible for that—Ministers, Parliament and those who work for the agency. We should all learn by our mistakes. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hartlepool was a Member of the House when we debated the Child Support Agency. We all have a responsibility for the lack of scrutiny and the lack of foresight involved in the establishment of the agency. I do not pretend for one moment that everything provided by the public sector is right.
I pay tribute to the Child Support Agency for substantially improving its performance, but I am well aware from my constituents that it has created many problems, particularly of communication and management. However, as I have said, I am impressed by improvements. We shall see whether all the outstanding problems can be resolved.
The nature of civil service work is changing. Responsibilities are being devolved, and the emphasis is on achieving high quality and timely results. Successful management of resources and people at all levels is crucial as is clear communication. These changes require all managers, and all aspiring managers, to have new and better developed skills.
The Government want to see Departments and agencies moving towards linking the skills they need to nationally recognised qualifications such as national vocational qualifications and masters of business administration. We want to see the acquisition of those qualifications in the service. That will give organisations a greater confidence that staff have reached a particular level of competence and give individuals a clearer confidence in their own abilities. Such qualifications will also improve the currency of their curricula vitae as they take the initiative in applying for jobs, perhaps in the private sector as well as the public, and pursuing their careers.
The second area is a much freer emphasis on the use and development of civil servants with specialist expertise. The civil service has always been particularly strong on the flexibility and adaptability of staff. It is a

quality that is vital to success as organisations change and move forward. Individuals have more responsibility. There is a greater need to get things right first time.
We cannot afford otherwise. We need real expertise in functional specialisms such as purchasing, resource accounting and information technology. We need skills such as project management and business planning. We need specialist and professional skills that can be deployed more widely—for instance, those of scientists and engineers. We have called such expertise "career anchors", and we look to Departments and agencies to encourage and recognise those who offer such in-depth skills.

Mr. Dalyell: On page 33 of the White Paper, the paragraph entitled "Science and Technology Training for the Senior Civil Service" outlines latest IT issues such as the Internet and electronic fraud, and says:
A separate series of seminars will explore how the use of IT can improve business practices within the Civil Service.
I ask this not as a hostile but as a factual question. What resources, and by what method, are the civil service devoting to on-going training, which is an increasingly complex subject?

Mr. Freeman: To answer that important intervention, I shall jump ahead a little and comment now, as this is a convenient point, on IT in the civil service.
We need to bring in skills from the private sector to work alongside those in the public sector to ensure that we can develop information technology that can be used by all citizens. I am delighted to make an announcement to the House concerning the work of the central IT unit, which recruits from both the public and the private sector.
I hope that it will be possible for the Government to produce, based on the work of CITU, a Green Paper in the autumn, charting the way forward on the use of information technology across the civil service. Two strands are involved, the first of which is the relationship between Departments.
I am talking not about systems but about services to the consumer. We must not seek to standardise across Government Departments the way in which services are developed using IT—the hardware and software. That, perhaps, is for each Department, or for experts—perhaps external consultants—to decide or advise on. The first strand is to ensure that the interchange of data between Departments is organised much more effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Freeman: I must finish this point, then I shall give way.
That is not something that the Government do as well as they should. I use as an example data interchange between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the Court Service, the courts themselves; or between the emergency services; or between the Inland Revenue, where it is appropriate, and other agencies—protecting, of course, the confidentiality of individuals; or ensuring that data that are required legitimately by one agency, which is passed in paper form, can be downloaded or transmitted by electronic mail between one Department and another.
The second strand involves serving the citizen. At the moment, if the hon. Member for Linlithgow wanted a tax disc for his car, or wanted to complete his tax form, he would deal, typically, with the civil service by mail, with the consequent delays and the enormous amount of paperwork. I pay tribute to the efficiency of the civil service in dealing with this great flood of documentation, but we need to transform that.
Literally, a revolution is required, so that the citizen can interrogate the Government directly, asking for information, for a self-assessment form for taxation purposes. The Government should respond directly to the citizen, by sending the forms required to be completed, or perhaps transmitting the tax disc. I use that example without any specific knowledge of whether it might be appropriate.
In the Green Paper, we want to see examples of where the private sector could play a crucial role with the public sector in developing pilot schemes, perhaps financing those schemes, perhaps even financing much of the investment in IT required in the future.
The civil service has a crucial role to play, and its skills must be upgraded. I am talking about the most junior civil servants as well as the most senior permanent secretaries. We must achieve that not only through the mechanisms I have described—and we must provide the resources for training and development—but by recruiting from outside.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend may know that I am a bit of an IT junkie, if not a bit of an anorak. How much learning is there, not just from the sharing of information with other British civil servants, but through contacts with civil servants overseas? We can learn from them, as they can learn from us.

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to confirm that civil servants and those on secondment from the private sector in the central IT unit have been travelling around the world recently, looking in particular at north America and what is already available through information technology.
My personal wish—it is not yet a view expressed by the Government in the Green Paper—is that Britain should become the first major country in the world to use IT to the full, not only in improving the interrelationships between Departments but in serving the consumer—the citizen—electronically as opposed to doing so through written communication. There are tremendous challenges ahead, and we should grip them—

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As any business man knows, the fastest way to implement new technology in a business is not necessarily to buy and own every piece of equipment and to employ every person necessary to the process. The Social Security Select Committee is concerned at the vast quantity of computing that is owned and employed directly by the Government. Is my right hon. Friend considering privatising what are in effect fantastically large businesses, and ensuring that we have faster and more effective technology transfer through the civil service as a result?

Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. I made the distinction between services and systems. Systems can be provided and financed by the private sector, but the Government must decide what services are to be provided to the citizen. Then we can either privatise, contract out or finance in the private sector the provision of the systems necessary to deliver those services.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend is coming towards the conclusion of a very interesting speech on an important subject. In the document, "Development and Training for Civil Servants", paragraph 1.15 on page 7 states:
The Civil Service College will have a continuing role in the provision of training and development programmes".
I speak for many people across the political spectrum and outside who recognise the central role of the Civil Service College in protecting the ethos as well as the continuity and improvement of civil service training. We must recognise that the civil service often gets ordinary people to do ordinary things, to achieve extraordinary results for the public. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there are no plans to privatise the college?

Mr. Freeman: I can so confirm. Indeed, I would like the college to develop further, and to train and develop more civil servants. For certain courses, it can do so with other bodies, such as universities here and abroad and other training organisations. We should not view the college as an isolated organisation entirely within the civil service, which has no connection or interchange with the private sector.
I pay tribute to Dr. Stephen Hickey and his staff for what they have achieved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, launched the college almost 25 years ago. A great deal has been achieved, and there is a great deal more to be achieved.
I want to conclude by talking about recruitment. Staff development can provide many of the skills and much of the awareness needed. The reductions in the numbers of staff at all levels of the civil service is bound to have an effect on recruitment. However, the Government want to ensure that the movement towards wider use of open recruitment to meet staffing needs at all levels is maintained.
The White Paper includes several initiatives. One is a new push to increase external recruitment at middle management levels to bring in at least an additional 50 middle managers in the first year of an interdepartmental scheme to be launched this autumn, and 80 by March 1998.
Another is to broaden the appeal of the fast stream competition, increasing the proportion of such recruits with science qualifications, and improving the tests for numeracy. We would like to increase the total share of recruits with scientific backgrounds from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. by the close of the 1998–99 competition. I announced that revised fast stream development programme to the House on 12 June, and we have set targets in key areas against which to measure progress.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I welcome that statement. Some 45 per cent. of our graduates have qualifications in science, maths, engineering and medicine. Therefore,


even if we achieve those interim targets, there will still be an arts bias that may not be justified by the responsibilities that those graduates will take on when they join the civil service.

Mr. Freeman: We should fall into the trap of developing an anti-arts bias. Several hon. Member; here today have arts degrees—I recognise at least three. There is nothing wrong with an arts degree. However, we want to recruit more scientists and specialists, who should be able to reach the top of the civil service and become permanent secretaries.
It is extremely important that we recognise that the old image of a double first in Greats at Oxford or Cambridge being the only passport to becoming a permanent secretary of a major Department is out of date, and should be out of date. We want to replace it with a meritocracy drawn from many different skills.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am glad to hear such a sterling statement of a real revolutionary management future. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Department of Transport when large numbers of highly trained scientists in the research laboratories, who had spent their lifetimes working for the Government, were told in their middle years, "Thank you very much. We like you very much, but we think you are too expensive. If you cannot be sold off to someone who has a very specific commercial bias, we will throw you out on the streets." I do not mind the right hon. Gentleman believing that it is his view that specialists are welcome in the civil service; he just should not expect the House of Commons to believe him.

Mr. Freeman: I do not accept the argument that, simply because an agency or an organisation is privatised for good reason, somehow that is the end of life. It may be for the individual—

Mrs. Dunwoody: They lost their jobs.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady may say that. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and I have debated—and no doubt will do so again in due course—our privatisation programme in the Cabinet Office for parts of the Office of Public Service. I firmly believe that the careers of the civil servants affected will be improved rather than diminished by working in the private sector. It is one reason why the hon. Lady is sitting on the Opposition Benches, while I am sitting on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Dalyell: In a debate in the House of Lords on 8 March, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—formerly Sir Philip Allen—raised a point about people getting back into the civil service after privatisation. Have the Government focused their mind on the way in which people who have left the civil service can get back into it, because I gather that often the door is shut?

Mr. Freeman: That is an important point. I have just referred to a specific recruitment programme of up to 80 middle managers. They could include those who have left the civil service but wish to return. They would not be part of the usual recruitment process, where we typically start at the bottom.
More importantly—I did not have time to refer to this in the White Paper—we want to extend the principle of advertising posts in the civil service. That does not mean that all posts will be open to external applicants, but we want to ensure that roughly one third of the senior grade posts are advertised, with about half being filled by people from the private sector. That means that one sixth of all the opportunities available are filled in that way.
If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the statistics, perhaps I could answer a parliamentary question on the subject and give him more details. I am interested in his question. There could be expertise, skill and experience that is worth re-recruiting back into the civil service, and under our reforms we are widening those opportunities.
I shall finish now, because I have troubled the House for far too long already. I commend the White Paper to the House; it is a serious attempt to raise a subject that has often been ignored both by the press and—dare I say it?—by politicians. Training and development is often regarded as a humdrum subject, although I exclude the two Members now on the Opposition Front Bench from that criticism, because both the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and the hon. Member for Hartlepool, to their credit, have taken an interest in training and development in the past. I hope that the House takes the White Paper seriously, and I commend it to hon. Members.

Mr. Derek Foster: I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and to the usual channels, too, for making the debate possible. Obviously the Association of First Division Civil Servants—the FDA—has stung the Office of Public Service and its Ministers rather badly. Only a couple of lines in my speech refer to the findings in passing, yet the right hon. Gentleman devoted most of the first part of his speech to the subject. It is quite wrong for Ministers to assume that we have colluded with the FDA and that it issued its press release so that we could refer to it in the debate. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: In fairness to my right hon. Friend, I should point out that only a few words at the beginning of his speech touched on that matter. What took up so much time was the fact that so many Opposition Members seemed stung by what he said. The interventions went on and on.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I shall not stray down the path of giving even more time to that subject now.
There are half a million civil servants, who spend £20 billion in public expenditure. Clearly, development and training must be central to the effective management of those huge resources. In the first sentence of his foreword to the White Paper on development and training, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says:
The people who work in the Civil Service are special.
I agree, and civil servants will be delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman says that. It stands in marked contrast to the way in which civil servants have been treated and spoken about over the past 17 years by Conservative Ministers. They have had to suffer continual denigration at the hands of Ministers; they have been told


that they are second rate, and it has been implied that if they were any good they would be in the private sector making loads of money.
The Deputy Prime Minister was at it again when he gave evidence to the Public Service Select Committee on 28 February. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) had asked him:
Under that you do take the view within that section"—
that is, that section of his reply—
that you have always believed that many tasks carried out by the public service would be better done in the private sector, do you not?
The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
Yes".
My hon. Friend then asked:
Do you believe that private sector practices are inherently better than public sector practices?
The Deputy Prime Minister answered:
in many cases, yes.
His approach seems to send the message, "Until morale improves, the flogging will continue."
The private sector has continually been held up as being able to solve all the public sector's problems—although in my view the United Kingdom private sector does not have an outstanding record. The long-term rate of economic growth under the Conservatives has been well beneath the 2.5 per cent. per annum achieved by the United Kingdom since the industrial revolution, and certainly beneath the long-term rate of growth in the 1950s and 1960s, which were so despised by Lady Thatcher as the years of consensus.
The management of change is becoming the most important challenge facing government. The civil and public services have been subject to wave upon wave of change—a state of affairs sometimes described as "permanent revolution"—with the next steps agencies, privatisation, contracting out, delayering, downsizing and the private finance initiative.
The privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, of Recruitment and Assessment Services, the Occupational Health Service Agency and the Chessington Computer Centre have already been announced. The other day the privatisation of the custody service was announced. Just imagine—Group 4 in charge of the Crown jewels and No. 10 Downing street. In just over 12 months the custody service has spent £100,000 on training—money from the taxpayer, from which the private sector owners will benefit.
Much of the change has been very poorly managed and has resulted in widespread demoralisation and a feeling of insecurity. In an interview in The Observer of last November, Sir Robin Butler said that the revolution sweeping Whitehall had sapped morale and created a climate of insecurity. The recently published FDA MORI survey revealed that 40 per cent. of senior FDA members expected to leave the service shortly and that morale was at a low ebb. The much more recent survey of civil servants conducted by The Observer found that 92 per cent. believed that civil service morale was quite bad or very bad, and 73 per cent. would not advise the next generation to join the civil service.
Those findings were underlined by an article in The Guardian on 13 June, which reported a 35 per cent. fall in fast-stream applications to enter the civil service.

Whenever and wherever I meet civil servants they speak of demoralisation and job insecurity. That will have to be tackled by a new Government from the outset, and development and training will be central to that task.
Permanent revolution will not be followed by permanent counter-revolution under Labour. There will be no return to 1979, to build a better yesterday. Indeed, for many reasons, the pace of change will not slacken. The first reason is that change is driven by international competitive forces. Secondly, the drive for efficient high-quality services will continue. Thirdly, Labour will inherit the electorate's wish for low taxes and better public services.
Fourthly, Labour will inherit very tight public expenditure plans. Fifthly, Labour will wish to abide by the Maastricht criteria for public expenditure and borrowing—

Mrs. Dunwoody: That would be a mistake.

Mr. Foster: I did not expect my hon. Friend to greet that idea with huge applause.
Sixthly, Labour will play a more constructive role at the heart of Europe. Seventhly, information technology will develop further, resulting in job losses and reorganisation of Government Departments and agencies.
In addition to all those pressures for change, Labour will vigorously pursue five culture changes to restore trust between people and government, and to reconnect citizens with their public services. Those culture changes will make further large demands on development and training.
The first culture change will be greater openness. Whitehall is reputedly the most secretive of all the developed democracies. The Government have taken some steps towards open government in the past four years, but the pace has been far too slow. Far greater momentum will be achieved when Labour assumes power, because of freedom of information legislation. Indeed, changes not requiring legislation will be introduced immediately upon our assuming power.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What information does the right hon. Gentleman consider should be freely available which is not currently available?

Mr. Foster: Again the hon. Gentleman invites me to stray from the main purpose of the debate. We shall debate that point with great pleasure on another occasion.
The second cultural change that Labour will introduce is devolution. Devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions may meet resistance in Whitehall despite the limited measure of decentralisation to regional Government offices.
Thirdly, we shall pursue another culture change—that of the user as stakeholder. The Minister touched upon that in his speech. Labour is determined to develop user-focused and user-friendly public services. That will involve deepening the charter initiative. For example, under Labour, users will be involved more in the design of targets. Public services will be encouraged to be less defensive about complaints. As in Marks and Spencer, complaints procedures will be used to improve the design and delivery of service. Such a culture change can succeed only with the enthusiastic co-operation of staff at all levels.
The fourth culture change that will place great demands on training and development will be the work force as stakeholders.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am most impressed. I had not realised that the Labour party planned to follow the line of Marks and Spencer. Does that mean that we shall extend the privileges and facilities offered to all low-paid civil servants into the provision of hairdressing, chiropody and other assistance within their places of work? It is an excellent idea and I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. Foster: I am pleased to have such enthusiastic support from my hon. Friend. I shall consider her ideas carefully. They seem to be excellent suggestions.
Widespread demoralisation will be an enormous problem for Labour which must be addressed immediately upon assuming power. Labour is determined to involve staff at all levels in continual improvements in productivity and quality of service along the lines that proved so successful at Rover and Thorn Lighting where development and training is central. Labour aims to transform the morality of the workplace. Each member of staff has a crucial contribution to make and must be encouraged to make it in an atmosphere of partnership and teamwork.
The fifth culture change involves the citizen as stakeholder in an enabling state. For the first time, a Government will be elected seeking to share power with the British people. The present Government believe that the only power that citizens need is consumer power. To those without it they say, "Tough! Get some or remain powerless." Labour knows that it can pursue economic, constitutional and democratic renewal only by involving the people and drawing on their skill, experience and creativity.
Devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and the English regions is only a start. Those Parliaments and assemblies will be expected to share power with local authorities, which, in turn, must govern in partnership with villages and communities. Government at all levels will create partnerships with the private and voluntary sector, recreating a sense of pride in village, town, region and nation. Government will facilitate and enable action to be taken. Leadership within such a complex network of relationships will require different skills and qualities from those required by line management—again putting great demand on development and training.
With such an ambitious agenda, change under Labour is inevitable, but it does not have to be threatening. The test of the new Government will be the degree to which they prepare the country and civil servants to embrace change and manage it for the benefit of the many, not the few.
Labour had the courage to change itself and now it is poised to change the country. However, Labour will invite the British people—including civil servants—to join in partnership to manage change. Change does not have to be imposed from on high and used as a weapon to browbeat and intimidate staff into submission. The threat of unemployment and dismissal are blunt weapons in encouraging staff to change. Why should staff co-operate in doing themselves out of a job or preparing themselves to be pushed into the private sector when they clearly wish to remain in the public sector?
The rest of the private sector has abandoned macho management. Managers understand the importance of trust in the management of change, and they know that they must engage the commitment of staff to the organisation's objectives. They know that people are a company's most important resource and that, if the company can harness the skill, energy and creativity of the work force, productivity and the quality of the product can be transformed. They recognise the importance of teamwork. Above all, they know that training and development—investing in people at all levels—is central to creating a flexible and adaptable work force capable of responding constructively to change. Under such leadership, change is embraced and shaped for the benefit of all.
Trade unionists can and do join in enthusiastically. Partnership at the workplace can become a reality and the work force can become stakeholders in the enterprise.
In his foreword to the White Paper, the Chancellor of the Duchy described civil servants as special. I believe that they have been treated as special mushrooms—they have been kept in the dark and showered frequently with the genuine article. After 17 years of such treatment, it would not be surprising if civil servants regarded the White Paper as an afterthought or the sign of an approaching election. The Government have at the eleventh hour grasped the fact that 500,000 civil servants and their families might represent some 1.25 million voters, many living in marginal constituencies. In my view, no one represents middle England better. It will be a crucial battleground, on which the next election will be fought.
In my naivety, I would have expected any large organisation—certainly one of 500,000 people—to have been keen to discern staff morale, but Sir Robin Butler stopped the Treasury and Civil Service Committee carrying out a survey of civil servants. He also tried to prevent civil servants from responding to The Observer survey funded by the Public Service, Tax and Commerce Union—the PTC—and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. Perhaps Sir Robin was trying to hide the uncomfortable truth from his political masters, knowing how much they have lost touch with reality. To do him justice, I suspect that he is the instigator of the White Paper, although it was first suggested by the Chancellor of the Duchy at a conference to celebrate the silver jubilee of the Civil Service College last November.
The right hon. Gentleman boasts that it is the first ever White Paper on development and training in the civil service. I welcome that, but if training and development are so crucial, why has it taken 17 years to produce a White Paper? Why have the Government issued a White Paper within 10 months of a general election? What has gone wrong with training to make a step change necessary now? Is it not true that departmental plans will not be drawn up until November 1996 to be incorporated into the annual budgets for implementation on 1 April 1997? Is it not also true that action cannot be taken on the White Paper until 1 April 1997? Therefore, is not the White Paper nothing more than a wish list for the next Government to implement?
I have dubbed the White Paper "the longest apology in history", for is it not an admission of widespread demoralisation? Is that not why it has been produced? The Government's stated aim is to ensure that the civil service


is equipped and trained to meet the challenge of an increasingly competitive global environment, and, in the words of "Continuity and Change",
to make better use of the Civil Service's most important resource—the staff of departments and agencies—by providing the prospect for a career with a good employer, offering challenge and reward; by developing their skills to meet the managerial, technical and competitive challenges they face; and by ensuring equality of opportunity for all members of staff, irrespective of background, gender, race and disability.
Those fine words must stick in the craw of civil servants in view of their experience in recent years.
Paragraph 1.9 of an early draft of the White Paper says:
the Government recognises that it is not an easy time to be calling for extra effort and investment in training and development in the Civil Service. Annual running costs are being reduced. Reductions in staff numbers across the Civil Service are inevitably giving rise to uncertainty and unease. Those reductions, combined with the action being taken to take out layers of management, also put additional pressure on staff—making it difficult to find time for training and development opportunities. Indeed the pressures that have led to the present difficult climate are exactly those that make it so important to motivate and develop staff to continue to raise levels of performance.
That has been diluted in paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13 on pages 6 and 7, but, even so, it is the first public recognition by the Government that staff have been going through difficult times. Perhaps it is the Chancellor's way of saying to 500,000 civil servants that "It hurt but it didn't work". He must not be surprised if civil servants react to those fine words in the White Paper by referring to the recent leader in The Sun:
same old Tories, same old claptrap".
Is it not the truth that, after 17 years of privatisation, contracting out, delayering and downsizing, civil and public servants no longer have confidence in a career in the civil service, as the FDA-MORI and the Observer surveys show? That is why Labour's plans for training and development will be at the heart of renewal of the civil and public services—not an afterthought.
No one should be surprised that Labour places training at the centre of its approach to managing change. For many years, it has been central to Labour's crucial supply-side measures for economic renewal. In "New Labour, New Life for Britain", which I am sure Ministers carry with them all the time, the centrality of training and development is made plain. It says:
this is the era of learning through life—adding economic value for improved skills. Technology and scientific change render our skills rapidly out of date. Many jobs are now computer orientated and an adaptable workforce requires a quite different approach.
The Government have been hopelessly slow to recognise the potential of new technology in transforming the availability of high-quality learning. People can now learn at home and at work through the new interactive information super-highway. This new Labour approach is based on partnership, on stakeholding, rather than on old-fashioned war between bosses and workers. It recognises the value of co-operation as well as competition, but it is hard-headed, practical and geared to making us more successful in the global marketplace.
Development and training must be informed by the long-term influences on the shape of the civil service. When Lady Thatcher assumed power in 1979, the civil

service was 750,000-strong. One of her objectives was to reduce the size of the state. That gathered momentum, driven by the Government's pursuit of low inflation and reduced public expenditure. The civil and public services were reshaped by privatisation and contracting out, and down-sized to 500,000—and further reductions are planned.
If the Chancellor's party remains in power, it will further hollow out government. It believes that individuals and businesses must be set free from the burdens of government. Some extreme interpretations of the minimalist state maintain that the Government should be responsible only for monetary policy and the defence of the realm.
If Labour takes control, it will create an enabling state. Labour expects the Government to be involved in a very wide range of problems in pursuit of economic efficiency and social justice, but the state will not be the monolithic state of wartime and early post-war years. Nor will it be the corporatist state of the 1970s. Labour will create an enabling state at national, regional and local levels. The Government will work in partnership with the people, the private and voluntary sectors and communities. That will do much to restore the trust between people and government, which is so badly fractured.
Further demands on training and development will arise because Labour will pursue a more constructive role at the heart of Europe—once the Prime Minister's objective. Europe will increasingly affect the workings of Whitehall. Brussels and Whitehall will increasingly co-operate, irrespective of whether economic and monetary union is delayed.
The Chancellor mentioned information technology. That, too, will make great demands on training and development. It has already had a major impact on private sector services, with individual banks, for example, losing 20,000 or 25,000 employees. Information technology is already making a major impact on Whitehall, but its biggest impact is yet to come. It will be enormously beneficial—the Chancellor made reference to this—in developing user-focused and user-friendly public services.
However, it would be surprising if information technology did not result in further job losses in the next five to 10 years. It may also result in major reorganisation of Government services. Labour recognises that the Government have a responsibility to prepare staff to embrace change and manage it for the benefit of the many. That, too, can be achieved only with development and training being central to the management of change.
If Labour assumes power within the next 12 months, the drive for efficient, high-quality, value-for-money public services will continue, because, for Christian socialists, the efficient use of scarce resources is a moral imperative. Moreover, the Labour Government may have to make a virtue out of necessity, inheriting the public expenditure planning totals for the following two years, the electorate's expectation of low taxation and the Maastricht criteria for public expenditure and borrowing. Against that unfriendly backcloth, however, Labour is determined to renew the civil and public services.
Civil servants may be sceptical about Labour's approach—

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: And how!

Mr. Foster: I expect the hon. Gentleman to be sceptical. Civil servants may be sceptical, despite my


attempt to show that training and development will be central to the management of change, not an afterthought. That is why Labour will put in place several confidence-building measures immediately on assuming office to help restore trust between the Government and their work force.
First, new Labour will affirm its commitment to the public service and reassert the classic civil service values that were once shared by one-nation Conservatives, but are now elbowed aside by the right-wing ideologues who are calling the shots. Then we will make it clear that the British civil service is a national asset, which since the 1970s has been a permanent and impartial instrument for all Administrations. The new Government will recognise their duty to preserve the efficiency, honesty and impartiality of the service for their successors. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy must be disturbed by the FDA press release, which we have debated. I do not wish to pursue it further, but I hope that, on reflection, he will take it seriously, examine the evidence and make a statement to the House.
Secondly, Labour will halt privatisation. Thirdly, Labour will put a moratorium on contracting out, while instituting a thorough and independent review.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Yes, let's have another review.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman's party would have been in a far less parlous state now had they considered more carefully some of the ill-judged and ill-considered reforms that they have made.
Under Labour, the motivation will not be a dogmatic wish to drive down public expenditure to fund tax handouts. Nor will Labour seek efficiency gains by driving down public servants' wages and conditions of service. Nor will we pursue downsizing as an end in itself. The motivation will be to obtain the greatest quantity of high-quality service from every pound spent, the need to divert resources from declining aspects of the service to expand others and to reallocate resources to front-line services.
Despite pressures from some trade unions and others, there will be no turning back to 1979 in an attempt to restore trust. No one should expect the permanent revolution of recent years to be followed by permanent counter-revolution under Labour. Labour will not try to build a better yesterday—what the country needs is a better tomorrow and a better future.
In conclusion, I have a number of specific questions arising from the White Paper. First, I wish to refer to cost. How much is currently spent on training and development in the civil service? I understand that no figures are collected, but that £260 million was spent in 1986–87, £295 million in 1987–88 and £356 million in 1988–89. Will the Office of Public Service now collect such statistics, as I cannot see how it can drive reform forward and monitor its progress without them? What additional fees are expected to be paid to Investors in People? What fees are currently paid to Investors in People? We know that civil service budgets are currently being reduced by 12 per cent. over three years.
Why has it taken 17 years to produce the White Paper if training and development is so important? Why has the White Paper been published within 10 months of a general election? Is it not true that the plans produced by

Departments and agencies by November cannot be implemented until 1 April 1997? Therefore, is not the White Paper nothing more than a wish list for the Government's successors? The Chancellor of the Duchy referred to "a flexible approach to recruitment at all levels". Will not that substantially reduce promotion prospects at a time when recruitment is low? Will not more external recruitment at middle management level further damage morale and undermine career development for current staff?
The Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned the Civil Service College, and we deserve to have more information about it. Now that it has survived becoming a next steps agency and the threat of privatisation, it should be on the threshold of an important advance. Perhaps Labour should resurrect earlier plans to convert the college to match the Ecole Nationale d' Administration in France, which has an extremely high reputation.
I welcome the White Paper, which is based on sound principles. It is well argued, and has an action plan that deserves to succeed. But I regret that there is no celebration of public service values, and that it does not seek to resolve the clash of cultures of the 1980s and 1990s. There is no strategic vision of where the civil service should go during the next decade, and it fails to engage the commitment of civil servants. The White Paper comes from an exhausted Government who are lacking in direction and drifting to an end. If they are re-elected, further demoralisation and job insecurity must be in store for civil servants as the Government chase the old communist dream of the withering away of the state.
In contrast, Labour has had the confidence to change, and is now poised to invite the British people to join in partnership to change Britain. Civil servants have a crucial role in the management of change, which cannot succeed unless development and training of staff is central to the process. The success of the next Government will largely depend on how successfully they prepare the country, including civil servants, to embrace change and manage it for the benefit of the many and not the few.
The White Paper may have to await the next Government to be implemented. If so, Labour will have far greater credibility in doing so. We believe in the public service and we value civil servants. We are committed to staff training and development as central to the management of change, and we are determined to renew the civil and public service.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), whose speech filled all of 36 minutes and was a mixture of the miraculous and the miserable. It was miraculous in that Labour now tells us that there will be "no turning back" to the 1970s—a phrase close to my heart and to the hearts of a number of my colleagues. We have been saying "no turning back" for many years in the teeth of the opposition from the right hon. Gentleman and his Labour colleagues. I am now glad that the Labour party has changed so much that it too can utter the words "no turning back". That is progress.
The speech was miraculous also in that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland unveiled his five new principles for the future of public administration, and gave


us a great deal of what I might describe as "motherhood and apple pie" management. If the civil service manual could possibly be written in the jargonese of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), we heard it this afternoon. There was one endless platitude after another—about change being "embraced" by a Labour Government instead of resisted, and about how training would be moved to the forefront and loved more than ever before.
Then we had the miserable. Labour would halt privatisation and contractorisation, as if it were possible to turn the clock back to the end of the 1970s. In his derision for anything to do with the private sector's increasing involvement in public administration, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland gave away the fact that the old resistance of the Labour party lives on in new Labour. The dangers of new Labour are as evident as ever.
If he thinks that it is possible to continue to manage an effective, efficient and evolving public service with bland policy statements such as "a halt to privatisation" and "an end to contractorisation", he is deluding himself and the House—although we do not believe him. He tried to offer a civil service nirvana to those civil servants who might study his words, but he would offer only sclerosis. He offered to embrace change, but he would halt change, and therein lies the danger.
The right hon. Gentleman was right about one aspect. The great challenge for every politician in every party in every country is how to help the people who work for the Governments of the world, and the citizens of the countries of the world, to adapt constructively and positively to an ever-faster pace of change. Politicians should use every means at their disposal, but they should not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, abjure privatisation and contractisation for dogmatic party reasons or to satisfy the cravings of outdated trade union interests.
I join my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland in paying tribute to the civil service. A picture is often drawn of a machine that is under pressure and under-performing, but I do not recognise that in the dealings that I have had with civil servants, in various Departments, since I joined the House in 1992. Civil servants are always willing to help, to serve Ministers impartially and to do their best for the public. The descriptions that one sometimes hears do not ring, true and I have nothing to complain of in the conduct of any civil servant that I have ever met.
Civil servants are doing their best to adapt to change, and the White Paper is a step in the right direction. It must be good to draw the attention of the decision makers in the civil service and of civil servants themselves to the need for permanent training and career renewal to ensure that the civil service is as adaptable as possible.
I wish to address my remarks especially to the civil service and the deregulation initiative. I am not sure that the White Paper addresses deregulation as one of the main concerns for the civil service. Deregulation has created a new pressure on civil servants: I ask the House to consider carefully the impact on the modern civil service of not only the huge volume of legislation that we generate, but that which we, here, expect civil servants to generate in the form of regulation which we consider only cursorily,

if at all. Many regulations pass into law, sometimes when Parliament is in recess, without any direct scrutiny by Members.
The civil service is now in a peculiar position. Civil servants are not only implementers of ministerial decisions. So many decisions have to be made that they are authors, advocates, explainers and implementers of those decisions. The very professionalism that civil servants traditionally bring to implementation is also being brought to the creation of regulation, and that may be the source of the criticism that civil servants now invite from commentators, such as Christopher Booker in his book "The Mad Officials". We expect civil servants to act with pristine efficiency and effectiveness, so we can hardly be surprised if the regulations they produce tend to be of the Rolls-Royce variety and are implemented with the same zeal with which we expect them to attack any task. We must ask how those decisions can be tempered more effectively to avoid over-regulation.
We have presented civil servants with an entirely new challenge in the conflicts between the legal inheritance of this country, as enacted by Parliament and implemented by Ministers, and the entirely new raft of law that is gradually being imported into our constitution from the European Community. The two legal systems are not compatible and they leave our civil servants in a cleft stick.
Our law is drawn up in black and white and in fine detail so that officials know where they are, as do those individuals who are subject to the various regulations. Businesses and individuals can go to the law and find out where they stand and we expect to find ourselves either inside the law or outside the law. We do not have an administrative tradition that relies extensively on the discretion of individuals—politicians or bureaucrats—to decide, for example, the safe level of some compound in the working environment or the correct material for a chopping board in a butcher's shop. We expect those details to be specified in regulation, but that is not the way that European law works.
European law, as drawn up in directives and regulations, tends to deal with broad objectives, because it is based on the traditional administrative system of France, known colloquially as the "Code Napoleon". Under that code, legal instruments contain broad objectives and it is left to individual officials to fill in the gaps in the drafting by making a reasonable interpretation and to implement the law. That is why European Community law translates so uncomfortably into United Kingdom domestic law. The broad objectives set out in a directive are refined and defined in our regulations so that a directive of a few pages finishes up as hundreds of pages of United Kingdom regulation.
A further problem arises from the insistence in our tradition that someone is either inside the law or outside the law. We define the directives in our law to the very limits of their interpretation, and people then complain that we gold-plate our directives. We tend to gold-plate our directives because, if civil servants do not obey and implement the law to its fullest extent, in our tradition they are personally liable. The result is that we put civil servants in an intolerable position when we start to advise them that they should not fully implement European Community directives.
Ministers may take that political responsibility themselves—I note great caution about under-implementing directives that are completely against Government policy, such as the working time directive or the beef ban—but it is unreasonable to expect civil servants to exercise their discretion and to put themselves at variance with the law if they fail to fulfil the objectives of a directive, interpreted as it might be by the courts.
I invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as he considers how our civil servants work, to consider also the interface between our civil service and European Community law, especially as he is also responsible for the Government's deregulation policy.
If Ministers start to shuffle off the responsibility for interpreting directives on to officials who are left at the front end of the regulatory process with the customer, it raises the question how our superb tradition of public administration can continue to exist. There is a simple answer. We do not need a system of European law with direct applicability and direct effect in order to have a single market. Let us have a court. Let us have rules for the single market. Let the court adjudicate on disputes between the member states. We do not need direct applicability and effect, which creates conflicts between our culture of administration and the culture of administration of the European Community.
If we continue down this road, we may well lose something in our civil service that is deeply precious—the accountability that it affords the House of Commons. I am not merely talking about the constitutional conflicts between Britain and Europe. Because we have black-and-white letter law which our civil servants follow, they are closely accountable to Parliament in carrying out the instructions that it has given them one way or the other. The danger is that we will lose that accountability by expecting civil servants to use more and more of their own discretion and judgment at the expense of a proper understanding of what we in the House intend them to do. At the very least, in the White Paper, that should be something about which we educate and for which we prepare civil servants, as we find ourselves ever more drawn into a closer relationship with our European partners.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: ft is important for the House to talk about the civil servants who provide the back-up system to the Government, because, unless the Government have working for them people who are neither corrupt nor dishonest and who are not open to disuasion of a venal kind, it becomes clear to the electorate over a period that they have in place a Government who cannot be trusted, who do not reflect the needs of a democratic society and who are, in effect, extremely dangerous. Therefore, when we talk about the British civil service and the training of civil servants, we must be aware that it is not an abstract subject but something of great importance.
I intended to criticise the civil service with some vigour. I shall hope to do so in a moment, but I must begin by saying that I am astonished at the behaviour of the Minister. I know him to be an upright man, but he chose—it obviously was not an accident because the Deputy Prime Minister said something along the same

lines at Prime Minister's Question Time—to present the Association of First Division Civil Servants as a wholly political organisation that in some sense had used the occasion of this debate to pursue what he called a hidden agenda. I do not believe for one second that the Minister believes that, because he is not a stupid man. Unlike some of his colleagues, he is an intelligent Minister and he knows that it is not true.
One supposes that one of the problems of the Conservative party is that it thinks of the civil service as it thinks of the servants. The First Division is the housekeeper and the butler, who must be given proper facilities and their own dining room and be kept reasonably cheerful. The rest, the lower-paid civil servants, no matter what rank, are there to serve, to keep their mouths shut, to do what they are told and never to question the word of the master.
When people think like that, they get themselves into considerable difficulty, but to make the leap from that to the suggestion that the civil service trade unions are running some great political secret agenda to persuade Parliament of something which is neither acceptable nor reliable is so extraordinary that the Minister should simply get up and say, "In the heat of the moment I may have said something that was wrong, and I withdraw it."

Mr. Freeman: I certainly do not withdraw it. The hon. Lady listened with great care to the words that I chose to use. I drew specific attention to a statement in a press release issued yesterday by the Association of First Division of Civil Servants. It said:
The response we have already received suggests a continuing and widespread problem.
That is a very serious allegation. I gave clearly the reasons why I disputed it on behalf of the Government. I expressed the hope that there was no hidden political agenda. I make no allegations that the civil service unions with which I have dealt are waging a political campaign. I am very annoyed about the statement. I made it plain why I was annoyed, and I expect to see justification for such a serious statement taken forward in the manner which I set out.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I find it extraordinary that I should be put in the position of having to defend civil service unions. They are not affiliated to my political party and they have never at any point sought political representation in the House of Commons, which is the reason why trade unions go for supporting individual Members of Parliament. So I do not have any particular reason to defend or protect the interests of first division civil servants—heaven knows, I have rowed with them for most of my political career—or those of civil servants further down the scale, with whom I deal every day—sometimes, I have to say, in acrimonious terms, because I have a habit of explaining myself straightforwardly.
I cannot let it be said that the legitimate unease—that is what the press notice was about—of those who serve the state should not be expressed by their elected representatives. That is what their trade unions are. Their representatives are chosen by them, and they have the right to represent the views of civil servants. We know that the machinery exists for them to take various complaints through Government Departments. We also know that any low-paid civil servants who got beyond a


certain level of complaint would find that they had an extraordinarily short career and that great pressures were put on them.
I am always horrified at the way in which in Britain we pick up particular words such as "civil servant" or "tax inspector" and use them in a pejorative sense as if those people have horns and tails and should be avoided in all circumstances and on all occasions. What are civil servants? They are coastguards. They are the scientists who developed the seat belt, although afterwards their expertise was dissipated. They are vehicle examiners who protect us on our motorway when we want to make sure that people are not driving sub-standard vehicles. They are people who administer our confidential documents in the health service and the Department of Social Security. They are people who, at every level of administration, hold important secrets about the business of government and do not make those secrets public but serve whomever they have as their political masters, willy-nilly and, in the case of most grades, for appalling rates of pay.
I recently visited the traffic commissioner's office in Manchester, which is one of the two traffic commissioners' offices that are at risk. I talked to those civil servants, many of whom were young and worked for rates that no one in the House of Commons would accept. No secretary in the House of Commons would work for that rate of pay. Many of those civil servants are women. Many have real problems which are never tackled by the provision of flexible working in a way that would transform their position.
What has happened to those young people in the past few years? They have been denigrated. They have been told that someone can be brought in from outside who could do a better job than the civil service. They are told that any middle manager from anywhere in the world could come in and do their job better than them. They are expected to be cheerful, charming and grateful. Oddly enough, they are not.
For the Government to produce a White Paper which contains astonishingly little of any importance and supposedly talks about the training of a group of people, male and female, who are fundamental to the business of government at a time when everyone knows that the Government could not implement any of it if they tried, is a positive insult.
It is something of which the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed. He knows that the good management of people and their interests does not lie in constantly telling them that they do not have skills or ability and that they are not really very clever, because if they were they could go off to the private sector and get jobs at much better money. That is not management. It is not man management and, believe me, it is not woman management. It reveals the consistent view of the Government that there is something wrong with the business of government.
Here are Ministers who are wholly dependent on their Departments for the answers that they give to Parliament. When they stand at the Box, they are wholly dependent on the briefings that they get from their civil servants. When they come up to the Select Committees, they are wholly dependent on the people who work for them to give them accurate and unbiased information. All they do

is respond by saying to those civil servants, "Oh, you're not really very good. Almost anybody else anywhere else in the private sector could do your job better than you do. But don't worry about it, we're going to retrain you, give you new skills and really give you an opportunity to do something much better in the future. Of course, we're not going to talk to you about pay and conditions." That would be embarrassing.
Is there anything that needs to be addressed within the civil service and about its training? My heavens, there is. Increasingly, the civil service is becoming the employer of a large number of women. Increasingly, it is taking on those who are laughingly called "of ethnic minorities". That means that they may be Britons, but they are black or Asian. What is the result?
I am specifically interested, and it will come as no particular surprise to the House, in what happens to the Department of Transport. I spend most of my time questioning it about all sorts of aspects of transport. I am totally dependent upon the civil servants at that Department and I am extremely grateful to them for the useful information that they consistently supply not just to me but to every other Member of Parliament about every aspect of our transport system. I therefore began to take an active interest in what those civil servants do in terms of their internal management. I discovered something that, frankly, I find extremely disquieting.
The central transport group of the Department of Transport consists of headquarters building in London and regionally based traffic area offices. Because it has a system of salary increases linked to the annual staff report performance markings, it is interesting to look at not only the results but the percentage of each grouping and the sort of demands that are made upon those civil servants.
When we analyse the annual staff report markings, what do we come up with? Consider those with box 2 performance markings at the administrative officer grade—AO. I apologise to the House for using such phrases but that is the way the civil service works and always has done, and if it is allowed to develop, such is the pattern to be followed. Of those administrative officers who received box 2 markings, white males accounted for 58.65 per cent. of them; ethnic minority males for 40 per cent; white females 48.35 per cent; and ethnic minority females 41.67 per cent. That is equivalent to 54.5 per cent. males and 44.5 per cent. females. One does not have to be too brilliant to work out that that represents quite a considerable difference.
When one looks at the higher grades and recruitment, one begins to suspect that the Government, for all their talk about training and their interest in the qualifications of the people in the civil service, are not prepared to tackle the questions of racism and of sexism. On the day when President Mandela came to the House and said that, to him, racism is a blight upon the human condition, the Government do not demonstrate at any level a strong commitment either to improving the lot of those who work in the civil service or even to examining in any great detail the problems that exist.
Last year, the central transport group asked the Civil Service College to carry out a detailed statistical analysis of the 1994 annual staff reporting results. The summaries provided were extremely interesting. Some of the language was sufficiently abstruse even to please the Conservative Government, but in the middle of the report there were some interesting bits. It stated:


Taken together, these
the statistics—
appear to constitute significant achievements"—
which means improvements—
which indicate that solid hard work has been undertaken".
That is the sort of thing that Ministers always want to come to the House and say, but the report also states:
Within this context, however, there is a great deal of work to be done. Only 34 per cent. of Black respondents … expressed confidence in the Equal Opportunities Policy. Secondly, only 44 per cent. of all respondents thought the current reporting system was fair and bias free".
Those are the people who have the machinery, according to the Minister, which will enable them to make their views known at every stage and, when need be, to blow the whistle on their political masters putting undue pressure on them.
That report also states:
Only half the respondents reported on-going feedback about their performance from their line managers … there was a widespread view amongst respondents and interviewees that the organisational culture in the Department gave insufficient emphasis to human resources".
Who has been in charge of such Departments for the past 17 years? Which Government, with all their management skills, have been in charge of those civil servants? Where have they been? Where is the expertise that they want to demonstrate, and which they now demand of other people? I find it sadly lacking.
That report states that the figures involved are small and that one should not assume that the findings are right or that there are sufficient problems to allow us to accept that there are difficulties, and that somehow or other people are victims of a racist or sexist system. That report also states, however:
Ethnic minority staff are presently concentrated in more junior grades than white staff (48 per cent. of Black staff and 54 per cent. of Asian staff are at AO level compared to 27 per cent. of white staff), and are … less likely to get higher box markings in their annual reports … ethnic minority staff received a statistically significant lower proportion of higher … markings than other staff … across all grades Asian staff have a statistically significant higher proportion of 'not fitted' markings.
So what is happening within the civil service? It recruits large numbers of low-paid women. Units like the Child Support Agency started off by making a virtue of the fact that they wanted not people who knew how the civil service worked, but new incomers to run a magnificent system. The resultant chaos was such that the Government are now madly searching for a way to get out from under the total and utter mess that they have created.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I should just like to tell the House what concerns me. I have been a Minister and I have been knocking around this place for a few years, and I intend to be knocking around for few more with the permission of the electorate. I have watched the deterioration of the relationship between Ministers and civil servants with great interest.
When I entered the Board of Trade, the quality of people coming in was so high that for me, who spent most of my time arguing with those same first division civil servants, it was an education to encounter that quality of thought and ability. Now what has happened is simple. Morale is so low that if people can get out of the civil

service at any level, they do so. They almost do not mind what they go on to. Those civil servants have a long tradition of commitment to their job.
That job is frequently uncomfortable, low-paid and extremely responsible. That tradition of commitment is being eroded by the attitude of the Government, who really do not think that the civil service is important. Within that set-up, there are real problems of racial discrimination and, in my view, sexism.
Instead of coming here with a beautiful pamphlet that neither addresses the problems of existing civil servants nor faces up to the cost and responsibility involved in future training, or the role that the civil service should be playing in a developing government system—have you noticed the new trend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which dictates that the emptier the pamphlet, the more expensive the cover?—Ministers should be saying something very different from the Dispatch Box.
They should be saying, "We have been in charge for 17 years, and we have got almost everything wrong, because we are contemptuous of the people who work for us. We are not prepared to address their real problems relating to pay and conditions, or even to treat them as responsible human beings. We are now paying the price, in the form of a constant erosion not just of civil service morale but of work standards, and the constant bleeding away of people of quality."
That is a price that the entire United Kingdom will pay unless the process is stopped. Perhaps Ministers would like to move over and let another Government come in—a Government who appreciate that human beings work best when they are valued, understood and, certainly, properly paid.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am not surprised that civil service morale is low. The speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and the threat from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) that a new Labour Government would be elected, were enough to send morale plunging to the depths. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) observed, we heard both the miraculous and the miserable from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, but we heard only the miserable from the hon. Lady.
Before my election in 1992, my experience of the civil service was limited to watching "Yes, Minister" on television and wondering whether it was a documentary or a comedy. Once elected, Members of Parliament find that there is a bit of truth in both: "Yes, Minister" is a comedy, but there is a strong vein of truth in it.
Shortly after my election, I became a parliamentary private secretary in the Department of Employment. After a year, I moved to the Department of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, where I remained for a further year. I am currently with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Having worked in three Departments, I have formed the view that the calibre of most civil servants is extremely high. They work very long hours, and I think that the country would be poorer without them; but that does not mean that we should be complacent. We must ensure that our civil service can take the country into the


21st century, which means proper training for civil servants. That is what the White Paper is all about. We need to adapt not only to the need for continuity in regard to the independence of the civil service, but to the changes and extra demands that are being forced on it.
Last night, and for several days before that debate on Members' pay, many hon. Members spoke of the increase in the work load. If our work load has increased, that of civil servants has done so as well. We must ensure that they are given the training that they deserve and we need, so that the country can remain competitive. We must be given proper advice, so that we implement policies that maintain our status as the enterprise centre of Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North mentioned a couple of aspects that he thought needed more attention, and I agree with him. As a small business man, I should like far more civil servants to be seconded to small or medium enterprises and to see at first hand the daily problems experienced by such enterprises. One problem is the amount of paperwork that businesses receive from civil servants seeking information. Some small and medium enterprises feel that they have merely been given the burden of extra form-filling, with no accompanying benefits.
We need more transference between the civil service and business, in both directions. Already, more people are able to move from industry—small, medium and even larger businesses—to the civil service, where they can use their wealth of experience to give Ministers better advice and thus improve their policies and legislation.
No one could say that we have not had problems in the past. When the Child Support Agency, which has been mentioned time and again, was introduced, there were appalling problems. It is certainly much better than it was, but I am not saying that further improvements could not be made. People are still coming to my surgeries saying that they have had problems with correspondence, and with inaccurate calculations of the payments that are due.
I also think that it would benefit members of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue to take more interest in business, so that they understand business people's problems and deal with them more compassionately. I am sure that some of the problems that I find in my mail bag, and hear about from constituents who are in business, could have been dealt with more sensitively had those in Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue understood better how businesses work.
I am delighted that the Government have decided to throw open competition for more senior posts. That is a major start on the road that continues the principles first established in the Northcote-Trevelyan report. As for privatisation, which has been mentioned today, I see no reason why we should stop the process: privatisation and contracting out have been universally successful. That is demonstrated by the fact that the Labour party is scared to say that it would reverse any of the privatisations that have already taken place. All that Labour Members will say is that they will not introduce any further changes. I believe that we shall experience the benefits of privatisation in the future, such as the financial and efficiency savings that will result from the privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Service.
As the civil service flourishes, so does the Government's commitment to training, education and recruitment. As the White Paper explains, they plan to step up training and qualification levels. They intend to give all civil servants job-specific training, and to allow any wider development that they need to perform their current jobs to the best of their ability. That is absolutely right, and I hope that Labour has no objection to it. I have no doubt that standards in the civil service, high as they are now, will be improved still further by the plans for training and development outlined in the White Paper.
I am also delighted by the plan to invest in people. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained, by the beginning of the 21st century every civil servant will be working in a Department that has been recognised as an investor in people. That will not only make the Government and the civil service more efficient, but help civil servants to develop and to reach targets, and to improve the morale about which we have heard so much today.
As I told my right hon. Friend earlier, I am extremely interested in information technology. We can learn a good deal from other countries, and other countries—the United States, among others—can learn from us. We should examine the way in which their civil services work, and the way in which they use information technology to get their message across. I have already put several pages on the Internet in an attempt to send a message to my electorate about the work that I do, and I also use e-mail so that they can contact me. A constituent working in Abu Dhabi has already contacted me with a problem. E-mail, which is being used increasingly, enables my constituents to contact me immediately and enables me to reply.
That is relatively new. I know that a number of hon. Members are using information technology and e-mail, but the system will expand. We have all been contacted by several companies that are climbing over each other to offer us free access to the Internet. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to seek challenges so that they can use information technology to the best advantage. Many young people are tuning to the Internet and we can use it to get our message across to them.
Some departmental pages on the Internet are good, and I am delighted at the way in which information is being spread. I am sure that Departments could make some of the pages more user-friendly and readable for the people that they are trying to serve. Many children are completely computer literate; they can operate computers better than their parents and will seek to use technology for information. I hope that we shall try to put even more information on the Internet, and that far more people will be able to use it.
Businesses need information to help their enterprises to flourish. They could even use the Internet to get through to the Minister, who could provide suggestions on policy. In the context of deregulation, for which the Minister has responsibility, perhaps they could suggest where rules and regulations could be put to one side to help their businesses.
Training that is based on legislation or on the interpretation of legislation or Brussels directives by the civil service or by Whitehall, must be assured of transparency and fairness, so that businesses are given as many opportunities as possible and will know that rules


are not interpreted differently in different parts of the country. Even worse is the fact that rules from Brussels that are being implemented here are being ignored or treated in a completely different way in other parts of the European Community, thus giving them an advantage.
I have great respect for civil servants. I applaud their work and trust that the White Paper will improve the training and development of our civil service, because it and the country will be the better for that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Like all hon. Members, I greatly admire the high standards that are observable in the civil service. However, I regret that the debate started with a sharp exchange during which the Chancellor of the Duchy thought fit to refute, as he put it, the allegations by the First Division Association about pressure from Ministers on its political impartiality. That is such a serious matter that it merited the time that the Minister took to answer it. I do not object to the fact that he devoted 18 minutes to it and gave way several times. The Opposition spokesman devoted 15 minutes to the issue.
What did not come out of the exchanges was the precise nature of the charges, and there was certainly no detailed refutation. The reports that appeared today in some newspapers derive not only from the press release to which the Minister referred but from direct briefings of journalists. They included allegations that Ministers have asked officials to prepare material for election manifestos and to alter official reports to provide a party political slant, and that they have asked to be briefed on political responses to Opposition policies and speeches.
Ministers are alleged to have sought briefs for public relations events during conferences, and it is also alleged that civil servants were asked to supply material that was subsequently used in party election broadcasts. It is alleged that they were asked to write political speeches by absent political advisers who were not civil servants, and to work in support of regional visits organised by Conservative central office. Apparently, they were asked to cost programmes that were drawn up by the Labour party on employment, social security and law and order, and it is alleged that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, gave instructions that those requests shoulcl be complied with.
The Minister's refutation did not apply to any of those individual allegations. He rested his case on a general assumption that standards were not declining and that the code was being observed. His case had three legs. First, he said that he had personal experience of the civil service and that it did not behave in that manner. That may be a reassuring view about the general behaviour of the civil service, but these are particular accusations, and one cannot take the generality of his acquittal as a refutation.
Secondly, the Minister said that there was no evidence that the due process for complaints that should properly be followed under the code of practice had been followed, or that such complaints had been brought to the notice of the responsible permanent secretaries and, ultimately, to the civil service commissioners. That may be true, but it is not even a prima facie refutation of the allegations: it simply means that they have not yet emerged at the top of the civil service.
The Minister also relied on the Nolan finding that there had been no systematic threat to politicise the civil service, and that no evidence had been laid to show that

there were other than isolated cases of that kind. But Lord Nolan's committee sat some time ago and the allegations, generally and particularly, were that these instances of pressure on civil servants were made in the context of the run-up to the general election. I do not think that Lord Nolan's committee sat in the penumbra of the general election. The Nolan inquiry was stimulated in the first instance not so much by bad behaviour by civil servants or Ministers, as by dubious behaviour by hon. Members. The findings were certainly encouraging at the time, but have no bearing whatever upon the generality or the particularity of these allegations.
I was tempted to ask what the Minister thought his purpose was in coming to the House to speak in the way he did, offering a sort of knee-jerk rejection of such serious charges without telling the House how he proposed to investigate them. It is quite extraordinary that he should simply rely upon the process of the code when, according to the reports, the allegations form a pattern of behaviour by his colleagues which spreads across 11 Departments of State and includes 20 allegations of improper behaviour, with five serious ones being investigated. In such circumstances, the House has a right to look to the Chancellor of the Duchy for some idea of what he thinks would be the proper response.
What is to happen about this? I understand that the general secretary of the First Division Association requested a meeting with Sir Robin Butler. That seems a perfectly proper first step. Openness is now required. There have been too many important, but protracted, internal inquiries, the results of which are produced long after the allegations are made, when they have little relevance. Such an approach would not be sensible or satisfactory. The House requires the allegations to be made specifically and explicitly, for them to be dealt with in a quasi-judicial manner by Sir Robin Butler or someone appointed by him, and for the whole transcript to be made available, so that we can learn whether these serious charges are justified. If they are, it is a matter of the gravest import, and if they are not, they should not have been made.
I cannot even begin to accept the idea that there could be a hidden agenda when someone of the standing of Elizabeth Symons, the FDA general secretary, puts forward what she and her union clearly regard as a pattern of behaviour. It is up to the Minister responsible to take that seriously; not merely to say that he takes it seriously, but to demonstrate by action that the matter will be put to rest and that, if there is any truth in it, the people responsible will be dealt with appropriately.
I question whether the Chamber is the most ideal forum in which to discuss a paper that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) described as rather thin and that deals with matters of detail that can be best examined in a Select Committee atmosphere, rather than in the adversarial atmosphere generated by the circumstances of the debate. It is an inflated document, without much value. It is less prescriptive than descriptive.
It is not entirely clear who is to take responsibility for the implementation of the proposals on development and training of civil servants. The paper says:
it is for the hundreds of organisations that make up the Civil Service to carry forward their own plans to improve their investment in training and development in accordance with their own organisational needs",


but I wonder who is responsible if those targets are not met. How will this all be presented? As it stands, the paper is flannelly.
A few yardsticks can already be gleaned from the progress report, which is more what it is like. It shows that, by 1 October last year, about 10 per cent. of the civil servant organisations covered had achieved the Investors in People standard, and that 16 per cent. were committed to it. Some six months later, the number achieving the standard had risen by 2 per cent., and 23 per cent. were committed to it. With such measures of progress, one must be a little sceptical about the Government's suggestion in the paper that it is possible to achieve 65 per cent. commitment in the next 10 months.
Not being greatly enthusiastic about the language of management consultancies and business schools that permeates the document, I felt inclined to ask whether such proposals are what the civil service needs most. I hope that, from what I say, I will not be thought to be questioning the importance of management and specialist skills, which are obviously of serious moment in increasing efficiency and effectiveness.
The paper, however, singularly lacks any sense that any training is required for public service qua public service. This document could apply to any large organisation. Nothing in it is peculiar to the civil service. The civil service requires qualities, characteristics and aptitudes that are, to some extent, peculiar and that have given this country's civil service its high repute, and deservedly so.
Those qualities, characteristics and aptitudes include the need for honesty, the duty of diligence, the appropriateness of courtesy, imaginative insight, toughness of intellect, generosity of spirit and readiness to co-operate. None of those is valued. They are certainly not so valued by the Government that they feel it necessary even to pay lip service to those things in the paper, which purports to be comprehensive in its discussion of civil service development and training.
That absence of attachment to those traditional civil service values has led to demoralisation in the civil service—to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others have referred—as those values have made the civil servant a person to whom the public look to deliver a response that is tailored to a particular need, not a churned-out, computerised reply that arrives late, is inaccurate and cannot be held to be the responsibility of an individual person. One finds in one's constituency that those are things that are changing the public's perception of the civil service. I hope that, in future documents on development and training, more than lip service will be paid to those characteristics.
The paper raises questions that are of questionable use to the civil service qua civil service. In some ways, it seems that the paper is more appropriate to commercial activity than to the provision of services in which the civil service is predominantly engaged, although I do not for one minute deny that serious and important commercial activities and the management of large sums of money are involved in the principles that the Investors in People standard seeks to cultivate: "commitment, planning, action and evaluation". Those are all, however, directed

to improvements in business performance and, so far as it is necessary to say that is important, it is a statement of the obvious.
A survey by Investors in People Ltd. of 231 accredited organisations reported that the most common benefits included better business performance, sharper focus on training and development, a motivated work force, better customer services, effective communication, a better corporate image, a better appraisal strategy, a more skilled work force and higher productivity.
Interestingly, the number of respondents reporting higher productivity benefits appears to have been relatively low compared with the number reporting other benefits. That leads me to wonder whether we have reached nearer the peak in that sphere than in some of the other matters that were measured by IIP. I do not know that it tells us much about the benefits of the civil service's Investors in People standard, because it was not a survey specifically of the civil service.
The paper has been published some two years after the programme has begun and, as I have said, it is more a chronicle than a set of proposals for implementation. Perhaps some of that will come before the Select Committee on the Civil Service or, in time, before the Public Accounts Committee. Performance can be measured more accurately there on a question-and-answer basis than it can by dialogue across the Chamber.
What is not clear from the document is how the proposed improvements are to be paid for. It seems that, if money is to be spent on training, it will not be new money, but money that has been shifted around. That might have been brought out more clearly in the debate's opening speech.
Civil servants claim that there is a lack of commitment to training specialists—that the old training and administration course is virtually defunct. They claim also that there is inadequate investment in the Civil Service College, which was mentioned earlier, in contrast to the use of expensive management consultants for training—particularly IIP Ltd., which apparently charges anything up to £1,000 for a two-day course—although perhaps that is not excessive as the standards of commercial organisations.
The White Paper does little to tackle the fundamental problem of civil service morale, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was not making a partisan point when she drew attention to that aspect. I have encountered in my constituency managers leaving their civil service roles early in their lives in search of new employment, not because they do not love the service but because they feel frustrated in their desire to serve the public through policies that do not enable them to operate as they believe is their duty.
I do not mean the spectacular, high-level, high-flying civil servants who seek pecuniary advantage by going into the City or some other place where, in the culture of the times, they will be more highly valued. That trend must be reversed. I am not able to say the extent to which that trend is due to under-remuneration. I doubt that that is the cause. My experience is that civil servants have a cast of mind that makes them ready to give service and accept lower levels of pay than people in other walks of life. It is a matter of valuation.
I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy used the warm language that he did in his foreword to the White Paper and speech. I am sure that he meant what he said


from the bottom of his heart, for he is an honest man. The problem is that the Minister and his colleagues have moved into an ethos over the past decade, whereby old values are not even fashionably discussed but are considered so old hat that they are scarcely considered proper matters for observation. That attitude must change, but I do not believe that it will do so under the present Government. I hope that a successor Government will view matters differently.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I trust that I shall not be out of order if I refer to two meetings that are in progress at this time in different parts of the Palace of Westminster. The first is being held in the Robing Room of the other place—a commemoration for Douglas Houghton, later Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It can be safely said that, before Douglas Houghton became a Member of Parliament, he was the father of the civil service trade union movement. I am sure that the shade of Douglas Houghton would rather that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and myself were here to argue the case for civil servants than attending his memorial.
The other meeting is taking place in the Grand Committee Room—a tribute to the late Brian Abel-Smith. I was Dick Crossman's parliamentary private secretary when Brian Abel-Smith was serving in his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) knows well the solace that Brian Abel-Smith gave successive Governments. He was one of the most conspicuously successful academics ever to enter the civil service.
It is the private and public view of Lothian region fire service that a real problem surrounds the rundown of the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-Marsh. It would not be right to say more now, because that matter is more appropriate to an Adjournment debate—but I put down a marker. To save time, I ask the appropriate Department to contact Colin Cranston, firemaster of the city of Edinburgh, to learn of his concerns. The House can return to that matter at a later stage. The training that successive generations of fire officers have received at Moreton-in-Marsh has been extremely valuable. It will be a matter of national concern if that college is seriously run down.
The question that I asked earlier derived from the concise remarks of Lord Bancroft in a debate on Recruitment and Assessment Services in the other place, when he asked:
what credible capability will remain … for ensuring the integrity of the systems used by the mass of departmental recruiters—the vital executive and clerical officers?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 544.]
The Chancellor of the Duchy said that he would address that question. Perhaps he will do so when he winds up.
I shall concentrate on the real concerns surrounding Recruitment and Assessment Services. Hon. Members who are acquainted with Lord Bancroft, whom I first knew as Reggie Maudling's private secretary in 1963, will know that he is not given to overstatement, yet he wrote in The Guardian:
To put it bluntly, open competition, supervised by an independent body itself protected against interference from any quarter, has been the bedrock of civil standards for more than a century.

With the sell-off of RAS, will the civil service ethos be maintained? That ethos is one of the last remaining safeguards. Lord Bancroft expressed the opinion that sooner or later
the absence of an in-house public service selection organisation for graduate and fast-stream entrants will result in a dilution of public service attributes and standards.
The full effect may not be known for 20 years or more, when the careers of the individuals selected under the new arrangement will have borne fruit.
In the RAS debate in the other place Lord Howe, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, did not make any attempt to answer the succession of heavyweight speeches, by Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and even Lord Peyton—who is not exactly a socialist. When such people express concern, this House should be given answers.
This debate should not overrun because another important matter is to be discussed, but I shall conclude with another matter of concern. It is true that Labour Members have either had a brief ministerial career or, as in my case, experience of being a PPS to a senior Minister—while other of my colleagues have had not such experience because of this country's political history.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich agree that a significant problem will be created if civil servants do not have security of tenure—the feeling of certainty that, whatever happens, provided that they behave themselves, they will remain in their task until retirement. That way, they can give the most precious of gifts—unpalatable advice, in telling the Minister things that he does not want to hear.
I am thinking particularly of those who were with Brian Abel-Smith at the time, not least the chief medical officer, Sir George Godber, Sir Alan Marre and others. I was parliamentary private secretary to Mr. Crossman, and I was well disposed towards him, but he was not an easy man to advise. [laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich laughs, because she knows what I am talking about.
One can understand the position with a number of Ministers over the years, Labour as well as Conservative, in that if awkward matters or important but inconvenient questions are constantly being raised—flies in the ointment, hassle and difficulties—I have a suspicion that those civil servants might be disadvantaged in their careers. However, whether or not they are disadvantaged is not the main point; it is the perception of being disadvantaged. They may say, "I have a mortgage to pay, children to educate and many other financial obligations. Is it worth sticking out my proverbial neck to give Ministers advice that they will not like?"
I will be personal and blunt. One particular Minister who became notorious in that respect was the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. Go no further than ask William Reid, the present ombudsman. He was turned down for the position of permanent secretary at the Scottish Office on a prime ministerial whim. He was put forward by the civil service and he was the man the Scottish Office wanted at the time, but his face did not fit in No. 10 Downing street. That is a matter of record and fact. It is a situation that could be repeated time and again if civil servants are not certain of their future.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that, in many respects, the Chancellor of the Duchy is an honest and caring Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is nodding his head in agreement. I should like to know the Government's considered opinion on protecting the willingness of civil servants, in a completely new situation—there has been nothing like it since Northcote-Trevelyan—to give unpalatable advice. That is the issue to which I wish to return.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Those of us who have listened to the debate will have benefited enormously from the colossal experience of my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I should like to share in the tribute to our late noble Friend, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I met him when I was a boy—not so long ago, although it seems like an age. He was a distinguished Minister with responsibility for the civil service and, with great distinction, he discharged the thoroughly unenviable task of chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. He did that extremely well.
It is hardly surprising that the debate has focused on the alleged corrupting of civil service standards and values.

Mr. Dalyell: Lord Houghton was a close friend of my hon. Friend's grandfather.

Mr. Mandelson: He was, indeed, a great friend and colleague of my grandfather.
It is noteworthy that the Chancellor of the Duchy addressed himself to the allegations made by the FDA. I shall return to that later. It is interesting that those remarks touched such a raw nerve with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not entirely clear why that is so. I think that he still has some explanation to offer to the House for his excited statements earlier.
I do not think that there is anything hidden about the FDA's agenda. It is perfectly open. Its responsibility, for which it commands enormous public respect, is to stand up for and protect the independence, integrity and political neutrality of the civil service. That is what it is there to do and it does it extremely well. It behoves all hon. Members to give the FDA the support it deserves in those objectives.
It would be churlish not to welcome the publication of the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said in his eloquent speech, the Labour party has a strong commitment to education and training. The Chancellor of the Duchy acknowledged our commitment to training and development within the civil service. That commitment is reflected powerfully in the early manifesto that we launched last Thursday, "New Life for Britain".
We endorse the objectives of the White Paper and support the commitment to the Investors in People standard—100 per cent. of civil servants to be employed in organisations recognised as Investors in People by the year 2000. That is an ambitious target, but it is right that it has been set.
It is a step change. In fact, when one considers the Government's performance in this area to date, it requires not just a step but a giant leap of imagination from where we are now. Currently, only 58 organisations, covering 12 per cent. of the civil service, have achieved the standard and a mere 15 per cent. are formally committed to achieving it—a rise of just 4 per cent. in the past 12 months. That is a measure of how far we have to go if we are to realise that ambitious target.
It is a deeply disappointing but not surprising record. In their heart, the Government are no more committed to giving their own organisations the skills they need to do the job than they are to equipping the country, our firms and our work force to face the tough, internationally competitive world in which we need to trade and pay our way in the future.
That is why the White Paper, however welcome in principle, risks being judged not as a great leap forward, but as a rather disingenuous and cynical exercise, long on warm words and short on the measures and resources needed to carry it through. Ministers have tried to master the lingo of training, skills and personal development, and that is a start of sorts. However, coming from the lips of a member of the Government, the phrase "investment in people" sounds more like an exotic fruit or something lifted from a foreign language phrase book than vocabulary that is genuinely meant and understood. The words are mouthed, but the concept is not really grasped.
I acknowledge that it is nice to read the admiring statements in the White Paper about some of the personal training and development achievements demonstrated by individual Departments. It is nice, because it is rare for Ministers to utter a complimentary word about anything done in the public sector. Yet the depth of the Government's commitment remains very questionable indeed.
Paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper says:
implementing IIP can mean a sizeable investment, not only in money terms, but also in time and resources.
But there is no hint of how those demands will be met or how the Government intend to pay for their wish list of targets, and no explanation of how the aims of the White Paper will be fulfilled, in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's insistence on freezing the running cost of the civil service.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently, has become a recent expert in Houdini economics, or so he claims. It behoves Ministers to say—I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will do so in his reply—how much the White Paper will cost and how it will be paid for. At the expense of which other worthwhile training activities will it be paid for, in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's desire to drive down civil service costs?
Many will draw the conclusion that, if Ministers have, an agenda of contracting out government, as is constantly proclaimed, they are unlikely to commit resources to investing in it first. As the saying goes, one does not feed a pig in the morning intending to have it for lunch that afternoon.
One has only to contrast Ministers' attitude to in-house training with the Government's increased use of private training programmes, run at great expense by outside consultants. I say "outside" consultants, but in fact groups of civil servants are paying through the nose, with


taxpayers' money, to hear other civil servants lecture them on effective strategies for career management in the civil service, on courses whose only novelty is that the private sector organisers get their rake-off at the same time.
I have seen the course brochure to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred. It is about how an individual civil servant can protect his interests, even though the organisation for which he works faces a bleak future. Its appeal to Tory Members of Parliament is obvious, but if I were in the senior civil service, given that I now have one quarter of the chance that I had in 1992 of getting a better job following all the senior management review cuts, I am not sure that I would be interested in paying £1,056 to the so-called Institute for International Research plc for the privilege of listening to a colleague from the Contributions Agency tell me about
preparing employees' career development plans to enable them to feel more secure within the new civil service career reality".
Some security. Some career. I think that I would already know quite enough about this new reality not to waste my money, and would prefer to go straight off to the headhunters instead, where I suspect that I would get a readier and more helpful welcome. That is precisely what too many civil servants are doing, to the great detriment of the Departments from which they are fleeing.
Far from investing in people, Government policies have systematically driven good people out of the civil service and out of the Government machine. Indeed, I understand that compulsory redundancies are imminent in the Department of the Environment, in grades 3 to 5. That will add to the 24 per cent. —nearly one quarter—of senior civil servants who lost their jobs between January 1994 and January 1996.
It is highly questionable whether many Departments, weakened by the endless stream of fundamental expenditure reviews, senior management reviews and all the rest of the Government's carry-on, retain the expertise and quality of staff to service the policy functions required by Ministers. That may not matter much to the current crop of Ministers, judging by their performance and the quality of their policies. They may not be fussy about the policy advice they receive, judging by the extent to which they are happy to ignore policy advice from their civil servants.
This week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to acknowledge that the Treasury, which has suffered excessively from staff cuts—I believe that that is widely acknowledged in the Treasury itself, following its "delayering" exercise—had lost £12.5 billion from public finances.
Future Labour Ministers will be more demanding of their Departments. They will expect more. They will certainly be a darn sight more careful about public finances. They will want to draw on a first-rate civil service, capable of handling the more complex policy issues that tomorrow's problems will pose. I stress policy problems and issues: the legitimate matters for Government; the things that civil servants should really be concerned about in their daily business, and what they are paid to do, not what some Ministers increasingly involve them in, if the claims and the revelations supplied to the House by the FDA are anything to go by.
I make no apology for returning to that important subject. Some very serious allegations have been made about the way in which public officials, publicly funded

civil servants, are being drawn by Ministers into party political activities in their Departments. Every hon. Member should be appalled by the findings of the FDA: that civil servants are being asked by Tory Ministers to work not for the nation's good or for the public's benefit, but for the party political advantage of the Conservative party. That misuse of civil servants is a disgraceful attack on their neutrality and impartiality, and it is right for their association to blow the whistle.
The FDA survey makes alarming reading. Twenty members—those who were daring enough, some might say conscientious enough, to respond to the survey—is a large number to have complained of being asked to do work that compromised their neutrality, and that is in addition to the four or five serious cases with which the association is already dealing. It is intolerable for such demands to be made. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to that.
I do not know how the Chancellor of the Duchy can possibly defend civil servants being asked to prepare material for election manifestos—that is what is happening, under the auspices and guidance of the No. 10 policy unit. Or they are asked to alter official reports to provide a party political slant; or to provide briefing on the political response to Opposition policies and speeches made by Opposition politicians. By all accounts, civil servants are working overtime, with enormous pressure being put on certain officials in certain Departments, to examine the proposals in the Labour party's manifesto, "New Life for Britain", issued last week.
In the vast majority of cases, requests for political work come from the Minister directly or from his or her political adviser—a fast-expanding species of political operator in Conservative-controlled Whitehall. That is an abuse of the civil service, of ministerial position and of taxpayers' money.
It is no secret that government is being closed down in readiness for the election, and that Departments are being turned into one big propaganda machine. [Interruption.] Conservative Members scoff at what I am saying. Was it not the Deputy Prime Minister who was reported in the Financial Times on 11 January 1996 as saying:
The Conservative party will increasingly become a fighting machine as opposed to a Government administering the country."?
Ministers and civil servants are being openly orchestrated by Whitehall political advisers and Conservative central office officials—although sometimes we could be forgiven for not noticing, for all the good their orchestration does them. When I drive along Whitehall early in the morning, on the way to my office, I see central office officials scurrying down Whitehall and into the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not to play tennis; it is to organize—with the Deputy Prime Minister, civil servants, Government press officers and the like—the orchestration of so-called Government information. It is a thinly veiled exercise to orchestrate what is not Government information, but Conservative party propaganda.
Ministers, civil servants and central office staff meet every day. Indeed, the Prime Minister has had to admit that in parliamentary answers.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is the propagandist.

Mr. Mandelson: I have no problem with admitting that I am a propagandist for my party—but I do not involve


publicly paid civil servants in the propaganda organised by the Labour party. But that is the charge being levelled at Ministers and Conservative Members. They are concerned with publicising not the truth about Government policies, but distortions about the Government's record and black propaganda about Labour.

Mr. Jenkin: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is shouting at me about evidence. I suggest that he looks carefully at the statement made by the FDA. Perhaps he wants to hide behind the Deputy Prime Minister's words. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that there is not one shred of verifiable evidence. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) should think carefully about the word "verifiable", which was a convenient word for the Deputy Prime Minister to hide behind.
According to central office legend and its notorious lie machine, all is fair in love, war and politics. That may be good enough for the Government; if they want to engage in non-stop negative campaigning, that is their political choice—but the civil service should be left out of their political chicanery.
I gather that Sir Robin Butler, the head of the home civil service, is alert to same old Tories, same old dangers as election preparations gather pace. I hope that he will personally lay it on the line to Ministers that the civil service is not the property of any single Administration. It does not exist to aid the re-election of this or any other Government. If the civil service will not stand up for itself, Parliament assuredly will. The Labour party will ensure that it does.
There is widespread anxiety about the condition and morale of the civil service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke extensively about that, and I do not need to repeat the points that he made—other than to say that it is the culmination of a decade and a half of dogmatic belief that everything public is bad and everything private is good.
Just five months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that
private sector practices are inherently better than public sector practices".
The most startling quotation of all from the Deputy Prime Minister is:
the paraphernalia of so-called public accountability is nothing better than a bureaucratic overhead".
That speaks volumes for the contempt in which Ministers hold public service and the democratic process in which we are engaged in this House.
That is the context in which we are considering the White Paper. At best, it is a set of platitudinous aspirations designed, very belatedly, to put the stamp of managerial correctness on this Government in their fading months in office. At worst, it is a cynical exercise that will change little and impress no one.
In less than a year, a new Government with a very different philosophy of training and development will replace this Government, to the benefit of the civil service and the country as a whole.

Mr. Freeman: I shall confine my remarks to answering the specific points raised, as I am aware that we need to move on to the next debate. I join in the tributes to Lord Houghton, who was a predecessor of mine as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was well respected in that post.
I note the decision of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) to proceed, if the Labour party is ever in government, with a moratorium on the competing for quality programme, including market testing and other initiatives. I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, because the right hon. Gentleman has, in effect, made a spending pledge. The amount of money that the Government save each year through those initiatives will be jeopardised. In due course, we will return to an honourable but tough political debate on that specific Labour commitment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. The first related to the cost of the White Paper. I have asked Departments to respond by the autumn, so that we can see how they intend precisely to implement the policies. Frankly, it must be a question of re-prioritising certain programmes so that Departments can accommodate whatever costs there may be within their existing public expenditure survey headlines. I shall look carefully at what the Departments say.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about timing. It was not Sir Robin Butler who initiated this exercise—I take full responsibility for the White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is closely associated with it. Indeed, he foreshadowed many of the proposals in a speech earlier this year.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to promotion and interchange. I do not regard advertising and open competition for posts as a threat. I regard the training and development of civil servants and the improvement of their skills as an opportunity for them to compete in those circumstances—and it will be a minority of circumstances—where there is competition from outside for a particular post. I believe that to be good for the civil service. If the right hon. Gentleman were ever put in a position of responsibility, I do not think that he would lightly jeopardise that interchange.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred to deregulation and the civil service. He has set me firmly on the course of developing a training course, at the Civil Service College, on cost-benefit analysis, which is crucial and central to the control of regulations—primary and secondary—coming out of the civil service. I thank him for the thought, which I shall pursue.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) alleged that I and other Ministers believe that the civil service is not important. I never said that; it is a travesty of the truth, and the hon. Lady knows it full well. I take this opportunity to congratulate not only those civil servants who were responsible for preparing the White Paper, but others throughout the civil service, for all the work they do. I have been consistently impressed by the quality, dedication and impartiality of all the civil servants I have met over the past 11 years, in four Departments.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked who is responsible for progressing the White Paper. I am the responsible Minister, and the OPS will take responsibility for implementation.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me three questions. I shall certainly take action on his point about the fire service. I shall read Hansard in the morning and ensure that the proper inquiries are made. He referred to Lord Bancroft and the Recruitment and Assessment Service. Frankly, we are arguing at cross purposes. Last summer we removed from RAS responsibility for control over the criteria for recruitment, and placed it firmly and squarely with the civil service commissioners. RAS performs a mechanical role of recruitment and exercises no discretion; it does not control the quality of or the criteria for selection.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report by the House of Lords Public Service Select Committee, which will be placed before the House of Lords in advance of a debate which I understand may take place before that House rises for the recess. The Government would certainly respond to any criticisms by their Lordships about the privatisation of RAS.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, because another debate must start very soon.

Mr. Dalyell: In column 287 of the Official Report of the proceedings of the House of Lords yesterday, 10 July, there appears an exchange between Lord Bancroft and Viscount Cranborne. If the Minister reads that, he will see that those experienced peers are obviously less than satisfied with what has happened already.

Mr. Freeman: I do not doubt those people's experience, but I have doubts about the dissemination of

information, which is very current, about what the Government plan to do. It is my responsibility to ensure that the Government respond quickly to the House of Lords Public Service Select Committee report on RAS. That will enlighten and, I hope, inform their Lordships.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me the crucial question: what is the Minister's reaction to inconvenient advice? That is the test of the impartiality of the civil service, and of the competence of Ministers and the Government. In all sincerity, I can say that not only I but the Government as a whole believe that one must listen to inconvenient advice. Indeed, if it is argued properly, one must act upon it. If one is offered rational advice, one must take rational action. That is the test of government. I do not accept everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but I accept his test with regard to inconvenient advice.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made a political speech, so he will expect me to conclude with a political remark. Yes, perhaps—unusually—I got a bit excited about the FDA, but that was because it has made serious allegations, which I take seriously. I give a commitment to the House that not only the head of the home civil service but I myself will take early, serious, comprehensive and conclusive action.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agreed that the hon. Member for Hartlepool appears to have learnt a great deal about the Association of First Division Civil Servants, probably from the time that he spent as its parliamentary adviser?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Hartlepool must speak for himself. To be fair to him, I must say that he obviously had a typed speech making copious reference to the FDA press release. Doubtless he took the same attitude as I did long before the debate began—that the issue is important. It is an issue that we must take seriously, and that is what the Government will do.
I commend the White Paper to the House, and I am grateful for all the contributions, both serious and otherwise, to the debate.

Parliamentary Procedure

[Relevant documents: Seventh report from the Procedure Committee of Session 1994–95 on Prime Minister's Questions, House of Commons Paper No. 555, first report of Session 1995–96 on Proceedings at the Start of a Parliament, House of Commons Paper No. 386, and fourth report of Session 1995–96 on Delegated Legislation, House of Commons Paper No. 152. ]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): We now have a relatively rare opportunity to range widely, if perhaps somewhat introspectively, over matters of concern to many Members—matters, indeed, that affect all Members in the House. I can only hope that the debate will not attract the same degree of attention as our other introspective debate last night on a rather different subject.
I welcome the opportunity to review some of what has already been achieved in the reform of parliamentary procedure, and to look at some of the proposals for the future currently under discussion. I see from the number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who are present that there may be rather more of a wish to contribute to the debate than I expected at one stage, so I shall try to keep my remarks rather briefer than they might otherwise have been. So if people see me rather hastily disposing of pieces of paper during the debate, I hope that they will understand that I am doing so because of my wish to accommodate the evidently burning desire to contribute.
I shall therefore touch only briefly on some of the important reforms carried out earlier in the lifetime of the Government, including especially the introduction of the departmentally related Select Committees and the European Standing Committees that now carry out so much of our scrutiny. Both those developments have made important contributions to the reform of our procedures, especially the way in which the departmental Select Committees have established a high reputation both among hon. Members and outside the House. In my view, they have contributed significantly to improving the capacity of the House to scrutinise the work of the Government and of the Executive in general.
The most substantial changes with which I personally have been involved, together with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who I understand cannot be here tonight, are the Jopling reforms, introduced in January 1995 and subsequently incorporated into our Standing Orders. Those reforms have given the House more civilised sitting hours, but at the same time they have maintained the traditional understanding that, while the Government get their business, the Opposition get their say.
The reforms have also improved the opportunities for Back Benchers to initiate debates on subjects of their choice. One important aspect of the Jopling reforms—it is a fact that I never tire of emphasising to the many people from abroad who come to see me about such matters, because it applies to our proceedings in general—is that many important elements in the package, and, indeed, in the whole way in which this place operates, are not embodied in Standing Orders at all, but in informal and voluntary agreements. I often say to people that one

could read "Erskine May" from end to end, and Standing Orders from cover to cover, and still not know how the British House of Commons works, unless one had been at some stage part of the usual channels or a close observer of them.
I think that that approach, especially the voluntary timetabling of legislation, has improved the sensible scrutiny of legislation. It has certainly taken us away from the rather absurd situation that existed when I first became a Member of Parliament, in which, almost routinely, the Opposition, of which I was then part, talked endlessly about the early clauses of a Bill, which inevitably drove the Government to impose a guillotine, and the later parts of the Bill got very little discussion.
Since the Jopling reforms were introduced, we have had to use a guillotine only once—and that was in effect an agreed guillotine, imposed in exceptional circumstances to take through emergency legislation just before a recess.
We have also had considerable success in cutting down on late sittings. As the House knows, it used to be commonplace for us to rise after midnight, and often well after midnight. When I first entered the House, one took it for granted that one would probably be here until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning three or four nights a week. That is now rare; of the 228 sittings since the Jopling reforms were introduced, only 19 have lasted beyond midnight.
The new arrangements for Fridays take greater account of Members' constituency obligations. As I have already said, the new arrangements provide for Back Benchers not only more time but what could reasonably be described as better quality time, in the form of our new Adjournment debates on Wednesday mornings. Those have almost doubled the number of debates that private Members can initiate, which also now take place at a more convenient time than on a Friday, or, worse still, in the middle of the night on the Consolidated Fund.
I am trying to keep my speech short, so I shall touch only briefly on another important set of recent developments—the procedures that have enhanced the role of the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. I know that there are some who tend to minimise their impact, but it is clear to me at least that they have been greatly welcomed, especially in Scotland, which so far has more experience of them. They are a worthwhile and important development in our procedures involving those parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister remind us of the costs so far of going to Dumfries, Dundee, Perth and elsewhere?

Mr. Newton: I do not have a note with me of the precise costs, but I do not consider them large compared with the gain of making Parliament, via the Scottish Grand Committee, more accessible to, and more alive for, the people of parts of the United Kingdom which, simply because of their geographical distance from London, may sometimes feel a little remote from some of our procedures here.
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is a Scottish Member of Parliament and I am not, but everything I hear suggests that, however much occasional carping there has


been here, the sessions in Scotland appear to have been very popular and very much welcomed by the areas to which the Grand Committee has been taken.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I hope that Scots Members will forgive me asking this question, but it is of universal importance. I understand that most debates in the Scottish Grand Committee are raised on an Adjournment motion. Is it possible to move opinion motions in those Committees? About 20 years ago, when we had regional committees upstairs, the disadvantage was that they were opinion only. However, they were allowed to reach an opinion, and not just to debate matters on the Adjournment, as I understand is the case in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Newton: The debates usually take place on Adjournment motions. There would be obvious difficulties in making any other arrangements, as the pattern of membership of Grand Committees does not reflect the party balance in the House—unlike all other Committees of the House. That clearly has to be taken into account in the working of the Committee.
I should touch briefly on another important innovation—the power under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to make deregulation orders. That was a pretty controversial procedural change when it was introduced, but I think it can be said—I hope not too controversially—that, with the benefit of more than a year's experience, the merits of the new procedure are more widely appreciated, and the anxieties it caused were unfounded.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who played a large part in working out those procedures; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has chaired the Deregulation Committee since it was established. It is quite striking that the Committee has unanimously approved every order so that it can seek the approval of the House without the need for further debate. So far, 21 orders—which would have taken significantly more time had they been presented as minor Bills—have completed all their parliamentary stages.
Before leaving this brief historical survey, I should refer to what has followed the Nolan report, although strictly speaking it cannot be regarded as a procedural change. It has certainly resulted in our putting in place—with a wide measure of agreement, despite controversy on some points—the most radical reforms of the rules governing Members' conduct for half a century or more.
The new Committee on Standards and Privileges is about to publish a draft code of conduct that the House will be invited to approve. There will also be detailed guidance on how the new rules will work in practice. The House will have an opportunity to return to the matter in due course when we debate the code; meanwhile, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I chair, not least the hon. Member for Dewsbury for her constructive role in its work.
I now turn to some of the procedural issues that are currently on the table, mostly as a result of the indefatigably energetic activities of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and the Procedure Committee.

A report was published on Prime Minister's questions some time ago. It is easy to agree that Prime Minister's Question Time has some features that nearly everyone dislikes. The difficulty is finding a solution on which there is the slightest possibility of everyone agreeing.
The Procedure Committee made a brave attempt to find such a solution in its report on the subject, which no doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will touch on should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The main proposal was that Prime Minister's questions on Thursdays should be devoted to substantive questions tabled on Wednesdays, that open questions should not be allowed, and that supplementary questions should be confined to the subject of the original question.
I wonder whether that would achieve the objective that my right hon. Friend had in mind. Hon. Members are already free to table substantive questions to the Prime Minister if they so wish, but the great majority do not. Hon. Members table open questions so that they can ask the Prime Minister a question that is topical on the day—perhaps relating to something on the lunchtime news. I very much doubt whether many hon. Members would really wish to give up that freedom and flexibility.

Mr. David Winnick: I am a member of the Procedure Committee. We did not make a firm recommendation, but asked the House to consider the possible alternatives. The question on today's Order Paper that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) demonstrates how important it is to allow open questions.
A fortnight ago, my hon. Friend would not have been able to predict the recent developments in Northern Ireland, but he used the opportunity provided by that question most effectively to make the remarks he did. He would have been unable to make those remarks had he been confined to the subject matter a fortnight ago, or even yesterday, when he would not have known about the developments earlier today.

Mr. Newton: Particularly by moving from a reference to a fortnight ago to a reference to yesterday, the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Procedure Committee, is virtually underpinning the doubt that I expressed as to whether hon. Members would find that satisfactory, given the way in which they use parliamentary questions.
Although I expect my right hon. Friend to comment on this, it seems to me that the apparent distinction between an open and a substantive question is easier to state in those terms than to define. Although, in one sense, it is a substantive question to ask whether the Prime Minister will meet the Trades Union Congress or the Confederation of British Industry, it is certainly wide enough to embrace almost as much material as an entirely open question. I am a sceptic on that proposal and the many variants of it.

Sir Peter Emery: Rather than waiting until I make my speech, may I clear up one important point? On Prime Minister's questions, the Committee was absolutely certain of the need to retain topicality. It would be misleading to believe that, if we moved in the direction of the Committee's recommendation, a question would have to be tabled 10 days or a fortnight in advance. We recommended that a Member would go into the ballot and know 10 or 12 days before that he would be able to table


a question, but he would not have to give notice of that question until noon on the Wednesday before Prime Minister's Question Time. So the degree of topicality could be enhanced.

Mr. Newton: I accept that it could be enhanced, but I feel strengthened in remaining somewhat sceptical by the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He specifically referred to a question asked of the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon that might not have been possible had the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) been required to give notice of his question by noon yesterday.
In no sense am I set in concrete against change; I am simply trying to sketch some of the reasons that lead me to be sceptical about most of the proposals so far. Many of the same points would apply to the proposal by the hon. Member for Dewsbury that there should be a 30-minute session of Prime Minister's questions once a week dealing with specific questions that had been tabled the night before.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister saying that, if he had notice of the details of questions beforehand, he would provide a more rational and constructive answer?
In my optimism, I provided the Prime Minister with the full details of a question on an important matter relating to pensions. I asked the question exactly as I had presented it—stripped of adjectives—and in an entirely unprovocative way, but sadly, the answer I received from the Prime Minister was described in an editorial in The Times as a typical civil service briefing, with a party political taunt in the tail.
Is it not the case that there is no hope of reform unless Prime Ministers can resist the temptation to make party political points at the Dispatch Box when millions of people are watching Prime Minister's Question Time?

Mr. Newton: What a nerve the hon. Gentleman has to complain about putting party political points in answers to questions! I have to put up with it from him every Thursday. Without knowing the details of the item that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I sometimes feel that the difficulty of providing a rational and considered answer is related more to the question.

Mr. Flynn: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten the occasion—it was a rare one—when I did not make any party political points. I deliberately did not give the Prime Minister my "yah", but he gave me his "boo" in return.

Mr. Newton: That was probably because my right hon. Friend was so surprised that the hon. Gentleman had not given his "yah".
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the arrangements for Prime Minister's questions are for the House to decide. I shall listen with interest to the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House that may be made in this debate—some of which have already been made. At this stage in the Parliament,

I doubt that it would be right to make substantive proposals for change. It may, however, be a matter to which the new Parliament will want to return.
A more recent report from the Procedure Committee, on which there has so far been very little comment—I shall not be able to make a great deal tonight but certainly ought to touch on it—is on delegated legislation. As we have come to expect, the report is comprehensive and informative, and makes a large number of recommendations.
If I were to pick out the most significant, I would mention the idea of a special sifting committee to decide which negative instruments are worth debating, starting each meeting of a Standing Committee on delegated legislation with a statement by the Minister followed by questions—rather like the pattern of European scrutiny Committees—and debating statutory instruments in Committee and on the Floor of the House on amendable motions. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will want to set out his Committee's approach more fully on those matters.
Certainly all the ideas are interesting, although they would have very far-reaching implications for the way in which we deal with delegated legislation in the House, and would need to be considered very carefully. For the moment, therefore, I shall cautiously confine myself to welcoming the opportunity of hearing what hon. Members have to say on the matter.
As I have explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton—I hope that he has received my letter—I do not think that in this area, as with Prime Minister's questions, it would be appropriate to try to bring forward significant changes of such potential importance at this late stage of the Parliament. Again, however, it seems likely that the next Parliament, with the benefit of any views that hon. Members may express this evening, will want to consider whether there should be further change in that area.
I can be somewhat less cautious about one aspect of another recent report concerning arrangements for swearing in at the beginning of a new Parliament, when, as the Committee rightly said, there can sometimes be considerable confusion, bordering on chaos, especially on the first day. The Committee's proposal to deal with the problem is that Members should be sworn in by seniority by Parliament of first entry or, for Members with broken service, by Parliament of most recent entry. Specified times would be allotted on each day for each cohort of Members, so that they would have a much better idea than they have now of when their time would come.
I have discussed the Committee's recommendation with Madam Speaker, and she has authorised me to say that, if she is re-elected to the Chair in the next Parliament—a proposition that I am sure would command widespread acclaim—she will be content to conduct the swearing in of Members in the way the Committee has recommended. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to confirm that, and I hope that he will regard it as a satisfactory outcome.
In what is a somewhat abbreviated speech, I want to expand on two important suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in a recent very wide-ranging speech on the constitution and making further improvements. He made the first by saying:
I believe we could start by looking at the parliamentary year. The House is swamped at the turn of the year with debates on the Queen's Speech, the Budget, and the Second Reading of the bulk of


the Government's major Bills … I would like to examine starting the parliamentary year in May not November, so that some of these processes can begin sooner and be spread more evenly.
Under the present arrangements, we reassemble after the party conferences and spend—sometimes—a couple of weeks considering Lords' amendments, and then generally tidying up the loose ends of the old Session. Then we have a short break for Prorogation—sometimes of unpredictable duration and bearing no particular relation to school holidays or half terms, which can cause difficulty to Members with young families.
Then we have the state opening, with a lengthy and wide-ranging debate. Shortly afterwards, we have the Budget, which also gives rise to a lengthy debate. So we are into December before we start debating the main elements of the Government's programme, and January by the time the detailed examination of legislation is properly under way.
With a spring state opening, we could deal with the debate on the Loyal Address before the Whitsun recess, which is one of the more predictable features of the parliamentary calendar. After Whitsun, we would get on with Second Reading debates. By the summer recess, which I would expect to start at about the same point in July as it does now, the Standing Committees would be in full swing, and they could continue when the House reassembled in October.
The unified Budget in late November would inaugurate the second half of the Session. We would take the Finance Bill in January as now, but by then, the major Bills should have completed their passage through the House, so the large and active Standing Committee that the Finance Bill requires would meet at a time of significantly reduced pressure, on both Members' time and the House's facilities. By 5 May, which is the deadline for Royal Assent of the Finance Bill under existing legislation, the Session would be coming to an end.
The change that I am examining on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would give the Session a better balance and improve the House's ability to scrutinise the Finance Bill and other legislation, but without losing any of the advantages of bringing tax and spending decisions together in a unified Budget. It has the additional advantage that it could be accomplished with only minor amendments to the Standing Orders and procedures.
Incidentally, although the pattern of November to October Sessions is one with which we have all grown up, there is nothing unalterable about it. Of the past eight Parliaments, only one began in the autumn—the one in October 1974. The Sessions of all the others began some time between March and June. For much of the 19th century, the Session did not begin until after Christmas—usually in February—and used to continue through the London season, which has rather disappeared, well into August. Clearly they bothered less about grouse shooting in those days. We should not be afraid of practical changes for which a good case is made out.
I am glad for hon. Members who want to speak that this is the last part of my speech. My right hon.] Friend the Prime Minister's second point concerned the planning of legislation and the legislative programme. He said:
I'd like to develop more structured planning of the legislative programme and more time for consultation. I believe this could be done by preparing each year not only detailed proposals for the

Queen's Speech covering the next Session, but provisional plans for what would be in the speech for the year after that. This would give Departments the opportunity to bring forward detailed proposals including, in some cases, draft Bills, for consultation in the year before the actual legislation was brought before Parliament.
We have already shown—I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) would acknowledge it—that we are firmly committed to raising the quality of legislation, and have developed, especially in the past three years, the practice of drafting Bills well in advance and publishing them in draft form for consultation before they are due to be introduced into Parliament. The advantage, of course, is that that enables informed comment by interested parties outside Parliament on the detail and practical effect of the proposed legislation to be made, so that any shortcomings are more likely to be discovered and dealt with before the Bill is introduced, rather than by revising it as it proceeds.
Last Session, we published five Bills in advance in this way. They were all included in the current Session's legislative programme, and have all received Royal Assent. This Session, we have published draft Bills on adoption, building societies and merchant shipping, and hope to introduce them in due course when a suitable opportunity arises, although that does not guarantee that they will appear in the next Queen's Speech.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has now carried this approach forward by suggesting not a two-year Session—as some at first thought—but a Queen's Speech that would not only set out the Government's intended legislative proposals for the Session in question, but look ahead in a somewhat sketchy and provisional way by including an indication of what might be covered in the Government's legislative programme for the following Session. Detailed proposals—including, in some cases, draft Bills—could then be brought forward for public consultation in the way I have described.
I would not envisage that this more tentative part of the Queen's Speech would cover the entirety of the Government's programme for the Session, because it is not always possible for the Government to establish their legislative priorities as clearly as that quite so far ahead. There are always things that one had not thought of when one started that come up. But it should be possible to give a significantly greater indication of the Government's intentions than is given at present.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, such a proposal would give significant help to Departments in properly preparing Bills by providing greater certainty. It would certainly be of great help to parliamentary counsel, who are sometimes hard-pressed in planning their work on the drafting of Bills. One point I wish to make in this context—to which many of the hon. Members in the Chamber will attach importance—is the desirability of associating Parliament, and not simply outside bodies, with the opportunities that such a proposal would provide for greater pre-legislative consultation.

Mr. Dalyell: If there were a shortage of parliamentary draftsmen—who play a vital part in the legislative process—that could create tremendous bottlenecks for the Government. We have been told that the Government are having problems in recruiting these extremely skilled


people, who have the knack of doing the almost impossible in legislative terms. Is that true, or purely a rumour?

Mr. Newton: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he has paid to parliamentary counsel. The Government—and, in that sense, the House—get an absolutely first-class service from these people, who are a somewhat insufficiently sung part of the legislative and governmental process.
To come directly to the hon. Gentleman's question, it is true that there have been pressures on parliamentary counsel's office in the past two or three years. This has been partly associated not so much with the difficulty of recruiting, as with a number of people having left for various reasons. We have undertaken recruitment in the past couple of years, although I do not have the numbers in my head.
Although people are sometimes sceptical about this, all the advice I receive suggests that it is many years before most people become fully effective as parliamentary draftsmen. If a problem leads us to have to recruit extra people, it will still be some time before those we have recruited will be able to contribute as much as if they had been in place for several years—although they will make a significant contribution.
I was saying that we want to associate Parliament fully with the opportunities for pre-legislative consultation. A more structured planning of the programme and more Bills published in advance in draft would make it possible for departmental Select Committees to contribute to the debate by taking evidence and bringing out reports. Personally, I see that as a more promising development than the use of Special Standing Committees after the publication of a Bill, for two reasons.
First, there would be more time for properly considered scrutiny, rather than the relatively compressed 28-day period in which a Special Standing Committee can act more like a Select Committee. Secondly, the practical reality is that it is inevitably easier for Ministers to respond to points emerging from such scrutiny before the Bill is published. I believe that such an approach could again bring a useful improvement in scrutiny from every point of view.

Mr. Clive Soley: That is an interesting idea, and I have heard it from the Leader of the House before, but there is a problem. Select Committees—which already have a large job to do—could not take on the work of looking at all legislation. If the Government want to do proceed in that way, they should look more readily at the proposal that other Bills be dealt with under the special Bills procedure. I need only say to him that neither the poll tax nor the Child Support Agency legislation would have reached the statute book in the form they took had they been scrutinised under that procedure.

Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I imagine that he intends to speak in the debate. I am rather doubtful about his proposal, if, in referring to the special Bills procedures, he has in mind the Special Standing Committee procedures. Having served on such a Committee some time ago—the so-called Warnock Bill,

which became the Education Act 1981—I would be more sceptical than he about how much could be achieved in the three sessions provided for during the 28-day period. That is not the same as the in-depth examination of a Select Committee, were a Committee to wish to carry out one.
The pattern of planning the legislative programme that I have sketched out would provide more time for Select Committees to do the sort of work that the hon. Member for Hammersmith would like in a planned way alongside other aspects of their work. What he said does not dent my point very much or the advantages that I see in the proposals, but I acknowledge that it is for departmental Select Committees to decide their own topics of inquiry.
Nothing would cause more resentment than me trying to tell Select Committees what to do, or the Government in any way laying down the topics that they should examine. If we go down this path, I hope that Select Committees will take an interest in pre-legislative proposals, and the Government will certainly seek to assist their inquiries in every way.
In the interests of keeping my speech fairly brief, I have cut a lot out, and I shall not attempt a great peroration. But I hope that I have made a practical contribution to the debate in this important and interesting, if sometimes rather arcane, area. I look forward to the contributions from Opposition Front Benchers and other Members.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: We have just heard an extremely interesting and helpful speech from the Leader of the House, who has clearly given some thought to the matter. He has analysed the changes that we have made, and looked at what further changes can be made which will be useful for everyone concerned. Like him, I intend to make a brief speech—briefer that I might otherwise have done. In addition, I must apologise to the House. After I have made my speech, I cannot remain for the wind-up or many of the other speeches, and I much regret that.
The opportunity for the House to debate parliamentary reform without a set motion or a set agenda is extremely useful, and it should happen regularly—perhaps two or three times a year. It helps us to test the way in which we work and discussing the changes in ideas in this cockpit that we share daily is helpful to all concerned. Our main aim must be to ensure that when we talk about parliamentary reform—rather like constitutional reform and other matters relating to the way in which the country is governed—we do not go down the road of jargon, and we must also not refer to the mechanics of reform. At the end of any reform must be a better quality of democracy, leading to a better quality of service and life for the citizens whom we have the privilege of representing.
Our goals must be to improve the quality of legislation, make Government more accountable and Parliament more open, democratic and accessible so that it becomes an institution that people can truly trust. In doing so, we would create what I would term a really useful Parliament, which we do not have at present.
I must thank the Leader of the House, as we have asked for a general debate on parliamentary reform for several months. I must confess that we did not expect it to be held during what has become, regrettably, the black hole of the three hours from 7 pm on a Thursday, when most


hon. Members are, legitimately and rightly, hot-footing it to their constituencies. Not many hon. Members will be able to contribute.
Contrary to what the Leader of the House said, I do not believe that our procedures are boring and arid. They are the key to the functioning of our democracy. We have only the one democracy and we must make it function in the interests of our citizens. We are often told that change is difficult. I have even heard colleagues say that change is impossible and I may have said that myself in earlier years. It seems to take a long time to make simple changes that could improve the contribution that hon. Members make. For example, it was 34 months after the publication of the Jopling report, on modest reforms to the sitting times of the House, before the House debated the reforms. I know that a general election intervened and I do not wish to blame anyone specifically because many discussions took place behind the scenes. But it is unacceptable to take 34 months from publication to a debate to begin to make the changes. I hope that that will not happen in the future, under Governments of either party.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that changes are normally made by agreement and I certainly seek such agreement. However, the Jopling report was delayed by what I will call a strong, but silent obstacle who used to sit not far from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rooker: Not every conservative with a small "c" sits on the Conservative Benches. A few months ago, I drafted a paper with some ideas for change and circulated it to colleagues, one of whom chairs a Select Committee. I dare not say who it was because he wrote back to say that he was interested in many reforms in social, economic and welfare policy, but he was not in favour of change in the House of Commons. That attitude is what we are up against and one of the difficulties is selling change to our colleagues.
Reform is about rules, because we live by the rules, but it is also about the ethos of the way we work. The new code of conduct that Members of Parliament will be expected to observe, post-Nolan, will be useful. I hope that we will see that code in written form and debate it before the summer recess.
Yesterday morning I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) give evidence to the Public Service Select Committee. We accept that we cannot dot every "i" and cross every "t" and that flexibility must be built into almost all our procedures. The Select Committee is considering issues of ministerial accountability and standards and a possible code of conduct for Ministers. It might be appropriate to take some of the issues that are covered in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", such as Ministers' performance, functions and accountability to the House, and express them in a written resolution of the House. The House has no written rule on the performance of Ministers, because "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is a prime ministerial document. The House should take some ownership of that issue.
We cannot write all the rules down and we must accept the spirit as well as the letter of what is written down, because the spirit is just as important. We must also make changes by consent. I freely admit that most hon. Members have great ideas for changing the way this place

works, but no hon. Member, whether in the Government or on the Back Benches, can drive his or her idea through. The House must own its procedures and the House must also be given time to discuss changes. For example, early debates on the Jopling report would have been useful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury pointed out at the Public Service Select Committee yesterday—and I do not repeat her comments out of partisanship—that the sheer fact that the same party has been in government for 17 years affects the way in which that people perceive their roles. My hon. Friend is an ex-Government whip and I describe myself as a former active Government Back Bencher. For five years I helped my Government—I hope—positively. I was the last Labour Member of Parliament to legislate on taxes for the low paid. That is a long time ago now, but I did so against the wishes of the Labour Government. The fact remains that after 17 years of one party in government, it is easy for Government Back Benchers to think that their role is only to support the Government and, in the same way, for Opposition Back Benchers to think that their role is only to oppose. A culture builds up during a time when there is no change of Government which is not conducive to the furtherance of democratic procedures. That culture makes it difficult meaningfully to question Opposition policy and Government policy or to make the Executive genuinely accountable to the House.
We could experiment with Prime Minister's questions. We do not have to treat any change as if it were written in tablets of stone. Instead, we could experiment with a weekly one-hour session for a month to see how it went. That would be a momentous change in a way, but we would know that the experiment would last only four weeks. After that, we would revert to the status quo and we would have a chance to discuss and deliberate whether the experimental approach was better for the Prime Minister, for the Leader of the Opposition, for the public outside—in whose interests everything happens—or for hon. Members.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one argument in favour of the Wednesday meeting of the parliamentary Labour party is that it acts as a safety valve, even though on occasions not many attend? Is not the same true of Prime Minister's questions twice every week? Inevitably, events flare up nationally and internationally all the time and a single weekly session of Prime Minister's questions would lead to endless points of order and other devices on other days to try to get issues debated.

Mr. Rooker: Of course, I accept that, but events flare up on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and when the House is not sitting. We have a mechanism to deal with such eventualities, although it is not wholly satisfactory. My point is about the mechanics of Prime Minister's questions. We should experiment with change and we should show enough confidence in ourselves to use the experimental process. My hon. Friend may be right and I may, in the end, agree with him, but we could still experiment.
The Leader of the House mentioned that it is far too late to make changes in this Parliament, but the changes to the way in which new Members are sworn in will be welcome. I sincerely hope that I retain the trust of my constituents and that I will be in the next Parliament. If so,


I will be called to swear in early and that will be a bonus. It is likely that a quarter of the House will be new, given the scale of retirements and possible changes in the way that the electorate will vote. I am not trying to make a party point, but we should be realists. There could be 150 brand new Members of Parliament after the next election. I regard that not as a problem but as an opportunity.
The new Parliament will be fertile ground for change. New Members will not have been sucked into our inefficient, corrupting ways—hon. Members will understand the sense in which I use the word "corrupting". They will be more amenable to doing things differently, perhaps more efficiently and in a way that is more conducive to democracy. I see the possibility of many new Members of Parliament as a prospect for change.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I think that I am about to be contradicted.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that often it is a question of the least worst solution? We probably owe my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for the idea about swearing in. When my hon. Friend talks about ideas for change, is he aware that, possibly in an irregular manner, the Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen connived at the disappearance of private Members' motions? If I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall enlarge on the matter. That meant that no hon. Member who won the ballot could use the opportunity to debate temporary standing orders which could have produced the sorts of experiments to which my hon. Friend refers. Is that not at least one of the semi-corrupting points over which my hon. Friend skated a few moments ago?

Mr. Rooker: This place works by and large on consent. We know that if the parties on the two sides of the Chamber and the two Front-Bench teams are not in co-operating mode, the Government have considerable difficulty, whatever their majority. We know that from the problems during the Maastricht process. My hon. Friend is right. There is sometimes a degree of consent which, I accept, works against individual Members of Parliament and the way in which they may want to progress. I have no problem about debating such issues.
To finish my point about new Members, the induction process is non-existent. That is a matter which could be usefully explored between now and the general election so that when new Members arrive they do not simply sign on and find a coat hook, a desk and a telephone but are informed about the way in which this place works. Informal arrangements are made by the parties, but a process could be arranged through the authorities of the House which would be much more professional than what happens now. That is one reform that we should consider.
There is no question but that delegated legislation is a massive area for reform. Obviously, not everything can be taken on the Floor of the House, but more fruitful use of our time could be made so that issues that may be contained in one paragraph of a statutory instrument that may never be debated in the House, but which may affect the footprints of people's lives, could be vented. One good

example is the prayer that we did not debate the other week on the measures on the Motability element of the disability living allowance for people in hospital. The measures affected some 40,000 people over a period. An Opposition prayer can get squeezed out. The measures were announced a year ago, but were buried away in a bigger, more important announcement of pensions and social security upratings. Yet the issue touched people's lives. It was contained in delegated legislation. That is a matter that we could look at.
The Leader of the House mentioned a considerable reform agenda. There is no time to go over all of it. To do so would cut others out of the debate. We have had a useful change in the sitting hours. I make no bones about that. The reforms have been a big success for non-London Members of Parliament, all of whom were by and large cut out of Friday Adjournment debates. We almost got to the point where we did not go into the ballot in case we came out first on a Friday on which we had constituency business. It is easy for London Members of Parliament. They can hold their surgeries on Monday mornings. Provincial Members—if I can describe us as that—have had a raw deal. The changes which included Wednesday morning sittings have been a substantial help to the overwhelming majority of Members of the House. The proof is there in Hansard.
Another reform that we ought to consider is proxy voting. It is a scandal that we have never settled the matter of proxy voting for absence due to illness or important state business abroad. We still have cases—I think that one happened one night this week—in which people are nodded through or have to be seen by the opposing Whip to be on the premises, but are too ill to walk through the Lobby. In other cases, hon. Members are brought into the yard by ambulance from hospital. That has happened in the past 12 months. It is outrageous. We are supposed to be a civilised Parliament. It is outrageous that we have not arrived at a satisfactory system of allowing Members to register their vote when they cannot vote due to illness or key state affairs and cannot be paired, for reasons which we understand. The House ought to deal with that. The time to do so is never the right time. People have their own agenda, but we do ourselves a disservice by not dealing with it.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rooker: Briefly, but I will not give way after that. I have some points to make and then I want to allow other hon. Members to contribute.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us, including, as the Chairman of the Procedure Committee knows, myself, raised this matter and were told that it was simply impossible for the two sides to reach agreement? One hopes that agreement will be reached. I am one of those who has been brought in. The Whips were very co-operative; they did not twist my arm. I did not come in an ambulance, but I came in on three occasions during the period when I was ill. I wondered what it would be like if I had to arrive in an ambulance.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. I accept that there has to be good will, but the matter should be dealt with.
I shall touch briefly on some main areas of reform. Ministerial accountability is one that goes to the heart of the matter. The insertion of the word "knowingly" in


"Questions of Procedure for Ministers" must be reversed. To suggest that Ministers can unknowingly mislead the House sends the wrong signal not so much to the Minister as to—

Mr. Spearing: The civil service.

Mr. Rooker: Exactly. The Opposition are committed to changing that. That does not mean to say that from time to time Ministers will not come to the House to correct something in a written answer. I have never known a case in which either an hon. Member or a Minister has come to the House and said, "I made a mistake. I was wrong", in which the House has not willingly embraced the correction.

Sir Peter Emery: If it is done immediately.

Mr. Rooker: It has to be done at the earliest possible time, as the right hon. Gentleman says. That aspect must be dealt with.
The Select Committee on Public Service is examining the possibility of a code of conduct for Ministers. When we receive the report in due course, it may suggest a way forward. The change will have to be made with the agreement of both sides of the House. It cannot be pushed by one side or the other.
The quality of legislation needs to be improved. I do not gainsay the fact that there have been considerable changes. I have not checked the detail, but I believe that there have been more changes under the present Leader of the House than under any other Leader whom I can recall. He deserves the thanks of the House for that. Continuity in post helps in respect of the Leader of the House. We have had hon. Members in post for short periods. Not all of them were what I would call House of Commons people so they were not committed to being aware of the difficulties.
Pre-legislative scrutiny by people both inside and outside the House is fundamental. It is crucial that people outside should have an opportunity to scrutinise draft Bills. We must also get rid of the almost kneejerk hostile reaction of Ministers to any decent amendment or fresh idea. That is part of the culture of opposition and government which does not serve our democracy and law-making process well. We could perhaps have First Reading Committees to take draft Bills away and look at them. There are all kinds of ideas, but by and large we need a more mature approach.
Another aspect of the quality of legislation which is missing is systematic post-legislative review of every piece of legislation that we pass at a certain point in time after it comes into operation. That would allow us to ask some fairly simple questions. For example, has legislation achieved what Parliament intended? Does it work the way Parliament intended? I am not talking about the type of review undertaken by the Law Commission; it should be conducted according to Select Committee practice. It is only from such questions and review that we can learn lessons that may be borne in mind when legislation is drafted.
When I was still in industry and studying for a second degree, I remember that a committee was set up to review the working of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. I remember reading at the time that it was almost unheard

of for such a review to take place and almost unique for such a committee to review the workings of what was then young legislation. The review reported in about 1992, but the Act was, of course, introduced in the mid-1960s. At the moment, there is nothing systematic about such a review, but that is what we need because it would put a discipline on the House and the draftsmen. We could learn a lot from such reviews.
Time does not permit me to comment on secondary legislation; instead I shall comment on Select Committees. I freely admit that I was one of those who voted against the establishment of the departmental Select Committees in 1979. I have since said that I was wrong to do so, but at the time I did not think that they would do a good job. I also freely admit that I have never served on a departmental Select Committee, either when I was a Government Back Bencher or, since 1979, as a member of the Opposition. I have, however, served on the Public Accounts Committee and I am happy to admit that I learnt more about the machinery of Government in two years on the PAC in the late 1980s than I have learnt in 10 years as Opposition spokesman on at least three domestic policies.
The PAC is not, of course, a model for the other Select Committees. I have to say constantly to my hon. Friends that it does not operate in the same way. For a start, it never takes evidence from Ministers. It takes evidence from accounting officers only, usually civil servants, so the collective view of the Committee is that they are fair game. That means that the Government Back Benchers on that Committee do not hold back when questioning, unlike their colleagues on the departmental Select Committees who are sometimes tempted to do so. The PAC is a model, however, in the sense that it has enormous resources in the National Audit Office, which could be put to good use among other Select Committees.
Too many Select Committee reports are left on the shelf. The innovative use of a couple of our Wednesday morning sittings to discuss such reports has been extremely useful.
It is Opposition policy that the appointment of the chairperson to any quango should be ratified by Select Committees. The Opposition support the next steps process, but we believe that the appointment of chief executives to those agencies should be ratified by Select Committees. Those chief executive should have direct access to the Select Committees and should not have to go through the Secretary of State. They should produce an annual report. I accept that that changes the structure of responsibility, but accountability to Parliament for Government action would be greatly enhanced by the production of such reports and if chief executives of agencies had direct access to Select Committees, perhaps once a year. They should not just appear at the say-so of the Secretary of State.
It is possible to question people without overturning policy if those responsible for policy are not present. I have seen that happen at the PAC, which never deals with policy but just with the economy, efficiency and the effective spending of taxpayers' money. I accept that there are certain grey areas, but we must consider those suggestions which would enhance the role of Select Committees and increase the accountability of the Government to the House.
It has been argued that the Opposition should be given more assistance. I will not go into detail about that because it is something to which we will take a more positive approach when we are in Government and those in the current Government are the Opposition.
The comments of the Leader of the House about the parliamentary year were useful and interesting. Everyone has his own view. I do not believe that the consequences of the unified Budget were thought through. We never had a debate about the change because we supported what the Government proposed. It was not an issue because there had been calls for matching the Budget for tax collecting with expenditure plans. It is, however, the coalescence of the Queen's Speech followed quickly by the Budget—two great five-day debates, or sometimes longer—that has prevented Standing Committees from beginning their work. That has led to great difficulties that have been highlighted in the past three Novembers and we must address them.
I do not think the House should sit any longer than it does. The sittings of the House are governed by a certain frequency. I do not think that any recess should last longer than six weeks—that view is not shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I would spread the rest of the weeks available throughout the year and I accept that that would require changes to be made to party conferences, state opening and the Queen's Speech. During the long recess all Back Benchers—500-plus Members—are deprived of the platform of the House. I have never understood for the life of me why written questions should not be tabled and answered during the long recess. There is no practical reason for that. We should also be able to table early-day motions during the recess. To an extent my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has already referred to the issues that may arise during a recess which would ordinarily be the subject of points of order, questions, Opposition day debates and Standing Order No. 20 applications for emergency debates. All those opportunities are lost to hon. Members during the long recess. They lose that platform and the means of seeking accountability. Sometimes things cannot be said because hon. Members have lost the privilege afforded by the Chamber. Written questions and answers and early-day motions could be published weekly throughout a recess longer than a certain period of time. I cannot understand why that cannot happen. I have made those suggestions many times and we should take them seriously.
If I do not comment on the attendance in the Chamber tonight, someone else will in tomorrow morning's press. This is an important, wide-ranging debate on the future of our democracy, because the operation of the House is fundamental to our constituents. They do not think that, however, because of our problems in terms of our efficiency, planning and the provision of good government and quality legislation. We have failed to provide a really useful Parliament for our constituents.
Consider the contrast between the attendance in the Chamber tonight as we discuss how we do our job and play our role when we carry out our functions as Members of Parliament with that for the debate on salaries. I recommend anyone to read the wonderful job description on page 22 of the second volume of the Senior Salaries Review Body report. That job description,

which I have never seen written down in that way, ran to a couple of pages. We have all talked about the role of a Member of Parliament to people outside or to academics. I always conjure up the answer because there is nothing written down, and we all do the task in different ways. The contrast between that written description of our job and the scant regard for our debate tonight will be mentioned by those who comment on our affairs.

Sir Peter Emery: I echo the compliment paid by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker), to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on the job that he has done as Leader of the House. Whether or not my right hon. Friend wanted to remain that long in that role, his length of service has been of great assistance to me and to the Procedure Committee. He has always been available and has always wanted to do whatever he could to assist the modernisation of the workings of the House. We have had more procedural acceptance from, and debate with, the current Lord President than with all the other Lord Presidents in the six years previous to my right hon. Friend's appointment.
The apparent theme of the debate is that there is a vast quantity of new ideas for the reform of Parliament. Perchance, I might be allowed to go a little further than my right hon. Friend on the alterations, streamlining and some improvements that the Procedure Committee has taken on since I became its Chairman in 1984.
It is perhaps now frequently forgotten that there never used to be a permanent Procedure Committee. Until 1984, such a Committee was appointed by the House to deal with a specific task. It was asked to undertake this, that or the other and when it had concluded the task, that signalled its demise. I made it clear that I would take on the chairmanship only if the Committee was set up for a Parliament. Consider the simple terms of reference of our Committee:
That a Select Committee … be appointed to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business".
We also have the right to call for papers and the like. We are appointed for the full period, however, and there are certain advantages, as Madam Speaker may have found. Sometimes, to avoid conflict in the House—rows, even—it is suggested that matters should be referred to the Procedure Committee. Even my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has been known to sidestep when asked for his opinion, suggesting that the matter should be referred to the Committee.
The pile of Procedure Committee reports that I am now holding up—for the benefit of those who are reading the record of the debate rather than attending it, it is just over a foot high—represents only about a third of our work. It is not often appreciated that it takes time to change the House's view about certain matters. About 70 per cent. of the Jopling report rosea from earlier Procedure Committee reports.
My right hon. Friend was proud of the fact that there had only been one timetable motion in quite a long period. In our first report, produced in 1986, we suggested certain procedures to enable a Back Bencher to recommend consideration of the Committee stage of a Bill in a Select Committee, and to relax the guillotine procedure so that a


Bill could be debated in its entirety. On 27 February 1986, the entire Government, less one—every Under-Secretary of State and parliamentary private secretary, and every Back Bencher—voted down, on a one-line Whip, the Procedure Committee's radical recommendation for reform of Committee stages. It took a further eight years for us to secure a recommendation along the same lines from the Jopling committee, which was not adopted for 34 months after that. That sort of timetable is involved when a change must be made in the whole climate of opinion in the House.
Initially, the proposal to limit some speeches to 10 minutes was considered unbelievable. It was decided that the experiment should last for only a year; then, because it did not seem so bad, it was retained for another year, and the system is still in place. It has taken a good deal of time not only to convince the vast majority of Members of Parliament that what we are doing is sensible, but to overcome the objections of a small minority. Reform in the House is often limited by such a minority. This is not a question of politics; it is a question of securing the agreement of most right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Dalyell: I remain unconvinced of the advantages of short speeches. One thing is certain: the right hon. Gentleman would not have given way to me if his speech had been limited to 10 minutes—nor would I have asked him to. The 10-minute limit truncates serious argument, kills debate and makes our proceedings mechanical.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: I have given way when my speeches have been limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. Dalyell: Then the right hon. Gentleman is a saint.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not claim to be that, but the Chair is sometimes kind to an hon. Member who gives way. There is proof of that.
There have been many other reforms. I shall not go into all of them, but the establishment of the Deregulation Committee has been very important. The setting up of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs was also necessary, as was the pressure that we exerted for the continuation of the Scottish Select Committee. The Government have accepted many of the Procedure Committee's recommendations—for instance, our recommendations on budgetary reform and private Members' time. Those recommendations have led to some improvement and modernisation.

Mr. Gary Waller: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the time that change sometimes takes, but is not one of the strengths of the House of Commons the fact that we do not introduce change willy-nilly? There is a certain amount of stability. We consider tradition important, but we do not necessarily retain it for its own sake. We are willing to change, but the House would be poorer if we changed without devoting considerable thought to what we were doing, and sometimes experimenting with new ideas and procedures.

Sir Peter Emery: I am not in favour of revolution—no one looking at me would ever think that I was—but I

have tried to be something of a reformer, and have continued to press my recommendations when I have known that they are right.
I was disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Lord President thought that there was no time for us to experiment with the suggestions involving reform of Prime Minister's Question Time and secondary legislation between now and the new Parliament. I am not sure that this would not be the best time for such experiments. In the first year of a new Parliament, there is a great deal of new legislation, but we could experiment now if it were made clear that we were doing so for only a limited time. The new Parliament could then revert to the old procedure, but could decide whether the experiment had worked. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts between now and October.
Hardly any hon. Member knows anything about the vast majority of secondary legislation that confronts us. I do not think that the idea of setting up a sifting Committee is unusual or radical; it would enable us to do our job more thoroughly.

Mr. Spearing: The reverse might well be true. If legislation had been dealt with by a sifting Committee, hon. Members could simply say, "Let it go." There would be no obligation for hon. Members to consult the daily parts and statutory instrument lists in case a statutory instrument affected their interests or constituencies. Surely it is up to hon. Members to scrutinise those lists, securing them from the Vote Office if necessary, and to attend Committee debates involving affirmative resolutions. Unless they look, they will not know.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman—we have both been in the House for so long that I almost want to call him my hon. Friend—really believe that many people go through those lists every Saturday? If the Committee had thought that, it would not have been nearly as concerned about the matter. A sifting Committee would not stop hon. Members doing that and making other suggestions. The concept of that being done in the name of the House seemed to the Procedure Committee to be worth examining.
The Lord President of the Council spoke about the operation of the parliamentary year. I have no doubt that, between now and the general election, my Committee will look at that. However, I can tell him that the change from February, August and October occurred in 1924 following a thorough joint Select Committee routine investigation of the practicalities and technicalities of drafting, tax raising and supply procedures. It was also in line with the views of the House of Lords. The difference nowadays is that there is a unified Budget. Much investigation would be needed before coming to a decision.
The reports are outstanding and I shall deal first with the issue of the election of the Speaker. The Committee felt that the first item on the agenda of a modern democratic Parliament should be the election of the Chairman or Speaker. It does not seem right that we have to go to another place to get permission to do that. We have to make three visits to the other place—the first to get permission; the second to have the election approved by Her Majesty; and the third for the Queen's Speech. We go backwards and forwards along the Corridor. A democratic Parliament should have the right to elect its


own Speaker and I do not think that I am undermining Parliament's traditions by suggesting that that would save a little time and would put the position of the House in its proper perspective.
There was some criticism of the method of electing the Speaker and we felt that it was incorrect to have a ballot and a sort of election but that, on the whole, the procedure by which the Speaker is elected is fair and reasonable. We accept that, to some extent, it depends on the first person on whom the eye of the Father of the House alights and who is called to move the motion. Anyone else who catches his eye may move an amendment. After that the procedure went successfully at the start of this Parliament and the Committee could see no reason for changing it.
I was delighted to have confirmation that Madam Speaker thinks that the suggestions for the taking of the oath are reasonable. It was said that there might be 100 or 150 new Members and the report states that if that happened, the Whips might wish to arrange either a ballot or some other method of organising the new Members so that there was no pushing and shoving. That would mean that the person who signed the book first and who might be the Father of the House 30 years hence could be dealt with efficiently.
Delegated legislation should be subject, and be seen to be subject, to adequate parliamentary scrutiny so that people can be confident that they are not being subjected to laws that have not been properly scrutinised by Parliament. That was the basis of the report's sensible recommendations, which could be the basis of experiment for three months to see how they work. We could discover whether they ginger up Standing Committees to allow questions, and affirmative instruments could be weeded to discover those that do not need the full treatment of a Standing Committee debate. When such a debate was required, it should be possible to have an amendable motion and a debate of two and a half instead of one and a half hours. Those suggestions are reasonable, and an experiment would show whether they worked.
The seventh report, which deals with Prime Minister's Question Time, examines the issue of open-ended questions. Our proposal was for an experimental Prime Minister's Question Time period for which substantive questions would be tabled by noon on the previous day so that they would be up to date. They would dictate the type of supplementary questions and we thought that that procedure would be an improvement on the "yah-boo" that goes on at present.
I am a little confused over remarks by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Leader of the House. Page 43 of our report contains a letter to me dated May 1995 from the Leader of the Opposition in which he expresses some anxiety at the prospect of closed questions and suggests that there would have to be provision for the Leader of the Opposition to ask a topical question of his choice early in Prime Minister's Question Time, as at present.
Our report meets that concern. In an interview with The Independent on 12 December, the Leader of the Opposition spoke about a genuinely radical transformation of Prime Minister's Question Time from its twice-weekly 15-minute purview role of ready-made confrontational soundbites for the television networks into

a cooler and longer half hour once-weekly session that would add to the sum of political knowledge. Some questions would be notified in advance, but the Leader of the Opposition would retain the ability to ask questions on the topics of the day.
On 14 May, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), in a wide-ranging speech to Charter 88 said that the Leader of the Opposition had made to the Procedure Committee a number of suggestions for change. She said that he proposed a half-hour session and that the Prime Minister would receive overnight notice of questions which would be closed rather than open-ended and catch-all about his engagements. She said that those ideas for reform were not accepted by the Committee. We were not persuaded that a single 30-minute session was a good idea, but we agreed about closed questions. I gather that the Leader of the Opposition now agrees with that. The only issues are the right of the Leader of the Opposition to ask any question he likes and whether the session should be weekly or twice weekly.
Suggestions by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition started us on our inquiry. Given the general feeling that reform is required and the apparent broad measure of agreement between the parties, we felt that we could proceed with at least a limited experiment on one of the suggestions before the election because it will not happen afterwards.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: I shall give way first to my colleague on the Committee and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman is an active Chairman of our Committee. Does he agree that closed questions would not necessarily change the character of Prime Minister's Question Time? The yah-booing would go on because the most controversial topics are raised twice a week. That should be taken into account. However, hon. Members in all parts of the House should stop the ridiculous practice, which has become almost automatic, of cheering our respective leaders a minute before they enter the Chamber. It is always a minute before, never two or five minutes, to make sure that they come in at virtually the same time. That sort of nonsense could come to an end quickly if common sense were applied on both sides.

Sir Peter Emery: I am always pleased to have the hon. Gentleman on my Committee because he makes sensible observations that assist the Committee. The cheering, rather third-form like, that the House has got into is nonsense. On his other point, the proposal might alter the whole proceedings or it might not. We could tell only with an experiment and that is why I would like an experiment for a few weeks or two or three months. We would then find out. I do not know which of us is right, but no one will know unless we conduct the experiment.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he and I first arrived here, Hugh Gaitskell was Leader of the Opposition and it was comparatively


unusual for him to intervene in Prime Minister's questions. It was an event when he did so, but the device that he used was the private notice question at 3.30, which meant that it was serious issue and there could be some follow-up. Some of us think that there is no hope of avoiding yah-boo when the Leader of the Opposition, with whatever good intentions, intervenes on the Prime Minister in the 3.15 to 3.30 slot. It is a recipe for the sort of yah-boo that, incidentally, has brought the House into such disrepute. It is part of reason why many people are so angry about what happened last night, because all they see of us are these hooligans on television on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 3.15 and 3.30. That is the impression that they get, so they say that Members of Parliament are not worth the money.

Sir Peter Emery: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. I recall when he and I came into the House. Prime Minister's Question Time was not a big event. I was a parliamentary private secretary to David Ormsby-Gore, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office. We used to have to hang around after Prime Minister's questions because the 15 minutes of Prime Minister's questions often was not taken up and we had to come back. That is unbelievable compared with what happens today.
The Leader of the Opposition came in occasionally. Then he always came in once. Then he came in twice, but now it seems to be common practice that he comes in three times. The idea of Prime Minister's questions used to be that they were for Back-Bench Members. The hon. Gentleman is right. Hugh Gaitskell used the private notice question to raise something of great importance. The press and the media noted it because it was a private notice question, he put it and the whole thing took on an importance that is not given to Prime Minister's Question Time by the media, other than the television stations, which show it as an entertainment. In America, people say, "Prime Minister's Question Time is amazing. How do you get away with it?" It is entertainment, not a serious political event, I am sorry to say.
I frequently hear or read what I consider to be especially ill-informed statements suggesting the vital need to modernise Parliament's procedures, but when one tries to question the media, in particular, on that bland statement, it is usually barren of practical suggestions or ideas. This debate has been especially useful because we have had some sensible and concrete ideas.
We hear that we must reform our working hours and make them the same as those of a business. People do not understand that most Members of Parliament arc here between 9 and 9.30. Many are here at 8 o'clock. Some green cards have been put around the Chamber by 8.15. About 30 or 40 Members are in the cafeteria having breakfast. The mail is dealt with from 9 until 10 or 10.30. From 10.30 to 1 o'clock, hon. Members are in different Committees upstairs. They are back in the Chamber at 2.30 for questions and then there is the debate, as today, until 10 o'clock. Most business people would not even consider that time scale.
One of the House's problems is that we have too many Members of Parliament. We have 650 Members. This is my view, not the Committee's view, but the concept that we could not cope with the number of constituents if there were only 450 constituencies is wrong. If there were 450 Members of Parliament, the average constituency would

have 82,000 constituents, the number I have in Honiton, and any Member of Parliament can deal with that number reasonably.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some hon. Members represent deprived communities and that they would therefore have a much bigger work load in dealing with constituency business than him?

Sir Peter Emery: No, I do not think so, and shall I tell the hon. Gentleman why? My constituency covers Sidmouth, Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth and many retired people write me letters, come to see me and lecture me about what the Government's policy should be. I have worked in a deprived constituency. I stood for Poplar in 1951. At that time, the Member of Parliament, God rest his soul, Charlie Key was not much interested in dealing with problems as he had a safe majority, so I had to deal with many of them. A Members' work load, however, will vary with the constituency. I understand that.
On the reduction in the number of Members, as I have said before, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. The only way it could be done would be to decide to do it in 10 years' time, and to order that the next boundary change review should take place after five years. With the wastage over that period of Members who would be willing to stand down, it could be accomplished. We have increased the number of Members from, I think, 630 when I came in and it is going up again by a few after the next election. We are getting ourselves into serious trouble, which is foolish.
This Parliament has the largest membership of any Parliament in the free world. The Chinese communists' house of the people contains more members, but we have the largest number of Members in a democratic country.
On sensible ways of proceeding, only yesterday, the Committee reported, and it will present a document to the House next week, on reforming the name of the Standing Committee. People who visit the House, whether they be students or overseas visitors, always ask what a Standing Committee is. Does it stand? No of course it does not. Is it permanently there? No it is not. We suggest that the Standing Committee name should be changed to a Public Bill Committee or a Private Bill Committee, which describes what the Standing Committee does. It is only a minor and small reform, but we are trying to make this place better understood by the people outside.
On behalf of the whole of my Committee, let me say that, where there are new ideas, we welcome them. We will examine them and try to get all-party support on them. It should not be a political matter, but something on which the whole of the House can agree. The Committee will take up a number of the suggestions that I have heard today and my right hon. Friend the Lord President, if he is still in office for many years to come, will have to deal with them.

Dr. Tony Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I apologise for being the only new boy to speak in the debate. The other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and will speak do so from


experience. If my comments seem outlandish and outrageous, I hope that the House will forgive me and put them down, in part, to innocence and inexperience.
When the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) spoke about the nature of this institution and working life here, I sensed that he did not quite understand the public's thoughts about the House and Members of Parliament. I related the right hon. Gentleman's description of our working day to figures that I obtained from the Library—I will not give the House the sordid evidence—on attendance at all Standing Committees and Select Committees in the three years following the 1992 general election, which do not bear any resemblance to the right hon. Gentleman's description of the average parliamentarian's working day.
The figures show that 19 per cent. of Members of Parliament—120 of them—managed to attend over that three-year period fewer than 10 sittings of a Standing or Select Committee, which is an extraordinary figure. Thirty per cent. of right hon. and hon. Members attended more than 100 sittings. There is an issue of perception. We may not believe in opinion polls but MORI's annual state of the nation poll has shown over the past five years a substantial drop in public respect for the House. When I am asked, as a new boy, what I think of the place, I tend to say that my respect for Members of Parliament as individuals has increased but that for the House as an institution has lessened.

Sir Peter Emery: Did the figures that the hon. Gentleman obtained from the Library take into account Opposition and Government Front Benchers? If not, the figures have a different bearing.

Dr. Wright: I said that I did not want to detain the House with the sordid details but I have studied the figures with care. I discounted certain categories, such as Front Benchers on both sides of the House and right hon. and hon. Members absent through illness. I could give the right hon. Gentleman an extensive list of hon. Members who, without being able to offer any extenuating circumstances, have played no great part in the life of the House over the three years in question. They include hon. Members who are loudest in their proclamations of belief in the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. Public esteem and respect for the House is declining. A few important and useful procedural reforms will not get to the heart of public disquiet. The House must understand that the public now feel that there is something fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Winnick: Although public perception of the House may be to some extent along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests, the public still come to see us, as individual Members of Parliament, when they have difficulties. In the 1930s—a time of great economic insecurity and depression, and of mass unemployment, the House was held in extremely low standing. Professor Joad and John Strachey wrote in 1931 that the House was virtually dying and no one took any interest, yet look how the House responded at the time of greatest difficulty, when the nation was in danger of being enslaved.

Dr. Wright: I accept that there are cycles, and the current cycle relates to the relationship between

Parliament and the Executive—which is always in a state of flux. The relationship has moved substantially in the direction of the Government and away from Parliament. Fifteen years ago, the Procedure Committee made a famous and powerful statement about the nature of that relationship. It sounded an alarm about the loss of powers to the Executive and asked Parliament to do something. Nothing has been done and the situation has grown worse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to his famous Rooker-Wise amendment of 20 years ago. I do not believe that the present condition of the House allows for any more Rooker-Wise amendments. The balance of power has shifted and parliamentary life has altered, so the kind of Back-Bench independence required to produce substantial interventions in the legislative process no longer exists. There are many reasons. We know, for example, why Prime Minister's questions are conducted in the way that they are. Parliament has to feed the daily media battle, so there is an enormous temptation for the two combatants to do their bit of business every day.
If I may be outlandish, I do not believe that Parliament in a collective sense exists any longer exists. In its place exists a Government and Opposition engaged in an permanent election campaign in the House, lubricated by the usual channels. That explains what transpires in the House far more than any high-falutin', constitutional theory. If we are honest, most of us are in the business of climbing greasy poles, falling off greasy poles or putting more grease on the pole to make sure people do not come up behind us. That is the kind of thing that drives this place along.

Mr. Winnick: Not guilty.

Dr. Wright: Well, we have casualties from that process, who then staff Select Committee and maybe even attain glory in them. We are talking among ourselves—we know that to be true. That is the sort of thing that animates the House. Parliament in a collective sense no longer exists, which is why there is no parliamentary career structure, although there is in terms of the Front Benches. Such a career structure may be achieved eventually.
As to the growth of the payroll vote, the ludicrous situation has been reached whereby even the most junior of junior Ministers has a parliamentary private secretary. The point will soon be reached where the PPS must have a PPS. That regime saps the independence of the House.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend speaks accurately of the public's perception of Parliament and of his analysis of unfortunate trends. Does he agree that perception is not the fault of the institution, nor necessarily the fault of standing orders or the way that the usual channels operate, but of the old Adam—human nature. The arena in which we find ourselves, which is so illuminated by the media, has heightened the effect—with the results that my hon. Friend partly correctly described.

Dr. Wright: That was an awesome intervention. I do not feel equipped to pronounce upon human nature. I will stick more modestly to the task that I have set myself, but I understand what my hon. Friend says.
Induction has been mentioned. I am struck by the fact that I am asked by the various organisations who bring them here to speak to parliamentarians about the


procedures of the House of Commons. I am not equipped to do that, partly because I have had no induction. I am inducting Members of the Hungarian Parliament into the ways of parliamentary life when I have had no induction. That is absurd
Parliament exists in several senses. It exists as a club. Clubs are good and people enjoy them. I am beginning to enjoy this one. Parliament exists at moments of great national rejoicing or national disaster. It certainly existed this morning when we sat in Westminster Hall during that extraordinary and moving ceremony. But it has to be more than that. It must be more than a greasy pole or a club. It must have a robust independence so that it can do the sort of things that Parliaments are supposed to do—hold executives to account and scrutinise what Governments do. It needs to be able to do all the things that we think we are about, but which we do not do very well.
It was said earlier that we are here on the evening after the night before and that this is the black hole of the parliamentary day. I am here, partly because I want to participate in this debate and partly because I have an interest in a private Member's Bill which, tomorrow morning, will be massacred by the Government. It is not my Bill, but it came in the top six in the ballot. It was unopposed on Second Reading, went through the Committee stage and the Government said, more or less, that they would not block it. We consulted widely outside and it has a great deal of support. We now discover that the Government have tabled a raft of amendments that will kill the Bill, which is designed to protect whistleblowers.
It is not difficult to work out why people feel cynical about this place. We raise expectations about what Parliament can do, and then it does not do it. Only this week, a representative of an important outside organisation told me that, effectively, his organisation had given up on the House of Commons. It focused on the House of Lords because it felt that it could still make an intervention in the legislative process there and it focused on Europe because Europe mattered.
If we have reached a point at which people who matter are saying that they have given up on this place because the legislative process is so closed and because scrutiny does not work, we have gone beyond the point at which we can just make marginal changes to the time of the year at which we do things. We must get a grip on all this. We must understand that there is something wrong.
I have probably said this before—it was a formative experience—but one of my first experiences here was to be told that Government Members on an important education Bill, which became the Education Act 1993, were spending their time in Committee writing their Christmas cards. As an innocent new boy I was rather shocked by that. However, I discovered that it was routine and that if we were in Government, we would be doing the same or we would be dealing with our correspondence or slipping out until there was a Division. The textbooks say that we are engaged in scrutiny, but we are not.
If he has not already done so, I suggest that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee reads the definitive account of the poll tax saga. I will not detain the House with the relevant passage, but the authors of that detailed study of the biggest administrative disaster of modern times describe the Committee stage of the Bill as a "futile marathon".
The Committee stage of many Bills is a futile marathon. The Opposition play the game of the soundbite and delay and the Government tell their people to keep their heads down and grit their teeth so that they can get the Bill through. That is not the way that good legislation will emerge and it is not the way that effective scrutiny will happen.
There is too much legislation. One of the many ironies of the period through which we have been living is that the Government said that part of their mission was to legislate less. They have legislated more. On average, we have had 500 more pages of legislation a year than before the Government took office and, we have had 500 more pages of secondary legislation. We know why: because it is a virility contest among Ministers to get Bills into the legislative programme. We should be far more concerned with post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that legislation works. We should be reviewing it, not putting ever more legislation through the same sausage machine straight away.
We have to understand that something is wrong, that the balance between Parliament and the Executive has moved even more decisively in the wrong direction. We have to understand that there are proposals aplenty to reform legislation. Not just vacuous leader writers, but a broad range of people have looked closely at this and have a raft of proposals. I shall not detain the House, but the excellent constitution unit reviewed a great deal of parliamentary procedure and has made 30-odd proposals, all with arguments and documentation.
There was the famous Hansard Society report in 1992—the best study that has been made of the legislative process in modern times. The House did not even reflect on it or debate it, yet all the ideas that we know that we shall eventually get around to, for example pre-legislative scrutiny and Special Standing Committee procedures—all the things that we know are required to make legislation better—are available to us. We have seen a glimmer of some of it, ironically, in the Deregulation Committee, against which I, in another mode, made speeches while knowing in my heart that the way in which it would work would be an improvement on the way in which legislation is made in the House.
We are beginning to nibble at ideas that may take us somewhere, but we really must start being bold and imaginative.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit hard on those of us who have been involved in this area. I acknowledge that the Hansard Society report has not been debated in the House, but I have looked at it carefully. I have discussed it with some of the people involved. I have attended one or two seminar-type gatherings on it. The report has had a significant influence on some of the things that I have been moving forward in the past two or three years and have spoken about tonight, which pick up some of the ideas in the report. I accept that parliamentary procedure works slowly at times, but progress is made.

Dr. Wright: I am happy to acknowledge the fact that the Leader of the House is well disposed towards many interesting ideas. I even accept that there is a theory that, by osmosis, reforms will come. I am trying to argue that things are rather more serious than that. Osmosis may not be the process by which reform must come. It must come in a more direct way.
It is not that we do not know what we should do. It is not that we do not know that something is wrong. The real problem is that we have not done it. Although we are nibbling, we are not yet serious enough about what needs to be done.

Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Wright: I would rather not, because I would like to finish. Other hon. Members also want to speak.
Last night, the House did more than it realised. It said, "We want to be taken seriously". All kinds of things flow from our decision last night. Personally, I did not support, after some agony, the money, as it were, because to be honest I could not bring myself to think that the House—this House of Scott, of Nolan, of cash-for-questions—deserved it. I wanted it to happen after the election, with a new, fresh-minded House, but that was not an option. If we say that we want to be compared with head teachers, with senior civil servants, and that we have an important role to play as Members of Parliament, that is not sustainable as an argument if we allow the House to continue in its present form.
As was said earlier, we cannot be clowns, buffoons and hooligans, while saying that we want to be taken seriously as professional legislators. Last night, the House took a step that involves an obligation that it will now have to live up to. That is the real, long-term message. If it does not do that, the wrath, contempt and cynicism that will envelop it will be far greater than anything that we have yet seen.
The House has made a promise to the people. We are possibly—who knows—entering an era when there is to be major political reform throughout our country, of which Parliament and its reform will be a part. It is a wretched misfortune that faced with the need for that, which is widely understood outside the House if not within, we as Members of Parliament respond to that issue in the way that we respond to every issue—with the old, arid adversarialism, which says, "These issues are like every other and we will convert them into the basest currency of political antagonism." It is absolutely absurd. For example, the Government end up defending the hereditary rights of peers because they feel that as reform has been proposed by another party, they have to take the contrary view.
The country is crying out for a period of sustained, consensual and sensible political reform. Part of that is a reform of the same kind—cross-party, consensual and serious—of our own institution. That is the promise that we made last night and we now have to deliver it.

Mr. Christopher Gill: By any token, we are having an interesting debate tonight, and I am tempted to follow up the points made by various hon. Members in their interesting speeches. However, I shall confine myself to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, before making some points of my own.
We all very much welcome the institution of European Standing Committees and the fact that we now debate European matters at sensible hours, rather than in the

small hours of the night. It is a vast improvement on old times. Generally speaking, the House welcomes the reforms introduced under the Jopling proposals, although my right hon. Friend would not deny that since they were introduced, there has been a change of character and atmosphere within the precincts of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend talked about the Nolan committee, and I want to express a view on that. I very much regret the increasing reluctance of the House to make decisions that hon. Members alone should make and the loss of parliamentary sovereignty that is implicit in sub-contracting the decision-making process to outside bodies, of which Nolan and the Senior Salaries Review Body are real and topical examples.
On the question of the parliamentary calendar, I hope that my right hon. Friend will oppose longer sittings. What on earth will this place do in longer sittings if it does not introduce more and more legislation, of which we already have too much and on which I shall speak in a moment?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, on bringing the report on delegated legislation before the House. I very much welcome the report, but I regret the omission of a letter that I wrote to my right hon. Friend earlier in the year. However, I accept that it may be my fault for not making it clear that I wanted it to be put formally to the Committee. Nevertheless, I am thankful that the Committee has considered all those matters and reported accordingly.

Sir Peter Emery: As I recall, my hon. Friend's letter was related to the European aspect of secondary legislation, which is what we are dealing with now, so it is most likely that it will be among the evidence for the second part of our consideration.

Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I thank him very much.
I shall make a few brief comments on the legislative programme. I welcome the publishing of Bills in advance and I am pleased that it is now recognised that Select Committees can be used in the process of pre-legislative consultation. We must accept two things. First, the Government do not have a monopoly of wisdom, nor could they be expected to have one. Secondly, we live in an increasingly complicated society and, indeed, a complex world. The Select Committees can do nothing but good in terms of taking many of the defects out of legislation before it starts its formal parliamentary process.
I shall speak about two problems—first, regulatory overkill, and secondly, the perception of the sovereignty of the House, which I shall demonstrate is in specific instances more apparent than real.
The House must take full responsibility for the volume and complexity of legislation. There is nobody else to blame; it is entirely our responsibility. I am not making a party political point; the question is simply whether the House, and Parliament in general, is reflecting the will of the people in its exercise of the powers on loan to us from the people who elected us for the duration of our stewardship.
There is a real danger of Parliament's seeing itself, and perhaps of its being seen, as having as the sole reason for its existence the process of introducing and passing


legislation. Indeed, I suspect that there are already right hon. and hon. Members who see the answer to every problem in the form of additional legislation. As I have said, we already have far too much legislation, and I suspect that some of the additional legislation that we get, and will get more of in the future, is purely a matter of political expediency—a form of yard-arm clearing.
Often, indeed in my experience almost invariably, there is no groundswell of opinion from our constituents demanding legislation on the many subjects upon which the Government feel constrained to legislate. Moreover, much of the legislation achieves quite the opposite of what was intended. I call that the law of unintended consequences. As I have said many times in the Chamber, such legislation has a disproportionate effect on the bona fide law-abiding citizen, while one suspects that those for whom the law was intended are in many ways skating by.
There is much more going on to the statute book than the Deregulation Committee can possibly hope to take off. All that amounts to a serious problem. I submit that there would be great benefit both for the party of government and for the country if we did much less, but did it much better.
In saying that, I appreciate that Ministers are heavily involved not only in the House and with their constituencies, but with the requirement to attend meetings in Brussels. That problem has been dramatically illustrated in recent weeks in connection with the beef industry. Our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been obliged to spend an inordinate amount of time on the continent. Meanwhile, the implementation and execution of the 30-months plus cattle cull scheme has left a lot to be desired. The position was redeemed only by the appointment at the end of May of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as co-ordinator. On 25 June, the Agriculture Minister was unable to be present in the House when the Liberal Democrats moved what was effectively a motion of censure against him.
When I was first elected to the House, hon. Members told me that Parliament could do anything that it wanted. At the time, I had no reason to doubt them. To this day, some hon. Members may believe that still to be the case, but the reality is somewhat different as we increasingly discover, particularly in respect of the fishing and farming industries.
The House may dislike the common fisheries policy or the common agricultural policy; it may consider that those common policies do not represent the best interests of those two vital British industries. It may even decide that they are positively harmful or conclude that they are simply too expensive, but at the end of the day we can do nothing about it. In respect of those two specific policies, the Houses of Parliament are no longer sovereign. I say that not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact. I cite in evidence the well-known Factortame case that subordinated the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to European law as adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.
The power of decision has passed from this place to the Council of Ministers, but that is not the end of the matter. Those same Ministers are no longer accountable to the House. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the case of our hapless Agriculture Minister. Faced with the current problem in the British meat and livestock industry—listening to our European partners, the House could be forgiven for believing that it is an exclusively British

problem—our Minister cannot propose an exclusively British solution, nor can the British Parliament oblige him to do so. Like a man with one arm tied behind his back, he has to tailor his remedial action to that which is permitted under the terms and conditions of the common agricultural policy.
I have little doubt that were that not the case, my right hon. and learned Friend would have brought proposals to the House for a deficiency payment scheme for the worst affected part of the cattle industry—the specialist beef producers who are producing beef under 30 months of age, which is the meat that we consume. I have no doubt that had my right hon. and learned Friend brought such a proposal to the House, the House would have supported him, but the European rules do not cater for that. Consequentially, my right hon. and learned Friend has to channel financial help to the livestock industry through the medium of the suckler cow and beef special premiums.
Twenty-five years ago, Parliament would have simply changed the law, but today the laws affecting agriculture—and of course fish—can be changed only by agreement with the other European countries. In the circumstances where the interests of the majority of the other countries might not be served by reforming the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy in any meaningful way, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that salvation lies in that direction.
I hope that the example that I have cited persuades hon. Members that, in certain respects, sovereignty no longer exists, nor am I suggesting that it has ceased to exist only in respect of agriculture and fishing. That is why an increasing number of right hon. and hon. Members are saying that at the intergovernmental conference it is a question not so much of thus far and no further, but of regaining powers that we should never have lost. That movement is widely supported by the general public and manifests itself in the support given in the House to the recent ten-minute Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). I think that that movement will grow.
I invite the House to consider the opinion of Sir Robert Megarry in the case of Manuel v. Attorney-General in 1983, when he said:
as a matter of law the Courts of England recognise Parliament as being omnipotent, in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence".
In specific areas, the House has surrendered that omnipotence, and it behoves this generation of politicians to redress that travesty, for which there has never been any popular mandate. In debating the detail of parliamentary procedure, I urge the House not to lose sight of the constitutional imperative, which, of course, is the defence of parliamentary sovereignty, which belongs not to the House or its Members but to the people who have entrusted us with its safe-keeping.

Mr. Paul Tyler: As a member of the Procedure Committee, I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will forgive me if I return to some of the main issues that Members have been addressing.
My text is taken from Madam Speaker's intervention just before Prime Minister's questions on Tuesday. She said from the Chair:
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are British parliamentarians and should be respected as such, not treated as Roman gladiators."—[Official Report, 9 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 169.]
I take very seriously the points made by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) about the adversarial imperative from which we suffer in this House, which is one of the major problems and certainly makes many people outside the House so dissatisfied with the way in which we conduct our business.
It is a foolish Member who takes issue with the precise metaphor that Madam Speaker used. Viewers looking at the way in which our proceedings are handled might, however, think that there was not quite the life and death immediacy of the gladiators' colosseum. What occurs is far more like the mock gothic jousting matches—false antagonism rather than real-life exposure of issues in the cut and thrust of genuine debate—of the era in which this building was designed and constructed.
When I first came into the House in 1974, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did, I was struck in the first few days by an encounter that I had with a newly elected Labour Member—Labour Members were then on the Government Benches—who asked whether I would be his pair. I had to say that I was extremely sorry that I could not. He came back an hour or two later, obviously not only horrified but bitterly disappointed that I was not prepared to act as his pair and said, "Please explain." I explained that I, as a Liberal, as I was then, had to decide on each issue on its merits. The Government had no majority, and I could not guarantee to him that I would always vote with the Opposition. In future, I believe that increasing numbers of Members, from all parties, will not automatically adopt the adversarial position, and quite right too.
I do not necessarily agree with the views of the hon. Member for Ludlow, but in some of the months of this Parliament, I suspect that he voted as often with the Opposition as he did with the Government. That is a good thing. We are not elected primarily as members of a party. We are elected to represent the public.
As the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood said, the House of Commons is at its lowest point in public regard. In 1991, 59 per cent. of the public thought that we were doing a reasonably good job. That figure is now down to 43 per cent.
The Procedure Committee has been looking at a number of important issues, but the time will come—it may be with a change of Government—when we all have to be a great deal more radical. I very much endorse the view expressed just an hour ago by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), that this is the time for experimentation. It cannot be done when the new Government come in—even if the same Government have been re-elected, perish the thought. The likelihood is that they will have a large legislative programme, so this is the time to experiment and produce new methods of operating. The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton, certainly could not be described as a revolutionary—I would describe him as an evolutionary. He is entirely right in this respect and the Leader of the House is wrong. I hope that the House endorses that view.
The Procedure Committee has an agenda at the moment which—although it may horrify the hon. Member for Ludlow—is not dissimilar to the agenda of the President of the European Commission, who said recently that he believed that Europe should do less, but better. That should be our watchword, but it is not happening at the moment.

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I am trying to be as speedy as possible. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he spoke, and other hon. Members want to speak. I do not intend to take interventions.
The decentralisation of legislation would be a major advantage to the governance of this country. It is ironic that the old command economies of the fascist states—Germany, Italy and Spain—have now effectively decentralised their legislation to a regional level. I had the benefit this afternoon of a meeting with a senator from the Australian Commonwealth Parliament, which does not understand the extraordinary degree to which our government is centralised in London. They think it is absurd for such a small country to insist on that. Decentralisation should be our second objective.
I also believe that we should be looking for greater transparency, and we must make our activities more explicable to the world outside. For example, naming our Committees in a way that makes sense to those wishing to make representations to them would be a sensible way forward.
It is also extremely important that we examine the way in which we operate as individuals. I am, obviously, not a Front Bench member. Nor do I expect to be on the Treasury Bench in the immediate future. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that 17 years in opposition gave one a different viewpoint. I must tell him that my party has been in opposition for about 70 years, and that gives a different viewpoint again. But it is as valid a viewpoint as that of any Conservative or Labour Member. There are people in this House who do not take part in the usual channels—as they are referred to—and who believe that we must still evolve better ways of using our time individually.
For example, it would be perfectly possible to hold the Adjournment debates that presently take place on a Wednesday morning on a Monday. We all know that these debates are not well attended—hon. Members with special interests attend—and there is no vote. We could hold those debates on the Monday morning, and use the Wednesday morning for private Members' Bills when there is the possibility of maximum attendance for the votes. The way in which private Members' Bills are shuffled off to a Friday—at which point the Government can kill them off, because they a know a large number of hon. Members cannot be here—is a disgrace, and we must still deal with that issue.
I was disappointed that in her recent speech on parliamentary reform, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was so weak on some of the basic issues. Listening to the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Cannock and Burntwood made me wish that either of them had made that speech. I hope that Labour will put some of their ideas on the reform of Parliament to the Procedure Committee, as I do not see the logic in leaving them in speeches and not publishing them to allow the Procedure Committee to consider them.
My party published last month a document called "A Parliament for the People", which was produced by a group chaired by Mr. Michael Ryle—a very distinguished former servant of this House. My party is quite prepared for those proposals to be examined in the Procedure Committee. It is ironic that so many people who come to the Chamber and say how much they believe in the Select Committee procedure are not prepared to put their proposals to the Procedure Select Committee. Then I believe that we could find a greater consensus for some of the ideas than either Front Bench is prepared to accept and recognise. The old antagonistic, confrontational attitudes of those on the Front Benches must also come into the discussions.
We have several reports to consider, but two are more important than the others. The first is the issue of delegated legislation. I was glad to hear that the Leader of the House felt that the Select Committee's proposals were headed in the right direction. We should examine especially what will happen when delegated legislation comes back to the Floor of the House from the Committee that will discuss it under the proposed procedures, because it is critical that we have a full debate, with amendable motions and real votes.
The implementation of the Jopling report has taken away from the House the opportunity to decide on some important issues, including—and I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow on this point—the emergency that has arisen from the crisis in the beef industry. So many of the related issues have been discussed and decided in the context of secondary legislation and that is a reflection on the inability of the full House to tackle a crisis of that stature.
The right hon. Member for Honiton referred to the work that the Procedure Select Committee has done on European legislation. The evidence that we have taken demonstrates all too clearly that the House's indigestion over European legislation has terrible consequences for the ultimate quality of that legislation. All too often, the original directive that arrives from Brussels is comparatively innocuous, but it is devastating by the time it has been gold-plated in Whitehall. The work that has been done by Christopher Booker and Richard North on European legislation on food and agriculture demonstrates just how devastating the result can be.
The second important issue is Prime Minister's questions. There are dinosaurs on the Back Benches of all parties. The Liberal Democrats have not got a Back Bench yet, but we will have one after the general election and, no doubt, we will also have our share of dinosaurs. To suggest that anyone profits from the ritual exchanges on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or that they could not be improved, is to fly in the face of reality and of the experience and the statements of the main participants. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition asked the Procedure Select Committee to consider the issue because they were so dissatisfied with what was happening. We heard evidence from two former Prime Ministers who endorsed those views. I cannot believe that it would be beyond the wit of the House to initiate a sensible experiment to see whether we can improve the situation.
Hon. Members have mentioned the problem of topicality, but that is nonsense. Prime Minister's questions happen on only about 60 days of the year and we do not have an opportunity to put topical questions to the Prime

Minister on the other 300 days. Why is topicality so critical? It is far more important that we find mechanisms to put the leader of the Executive on the spot. Nobody could pretend that that now happens at 3.15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The least we can do, as the right hon. Member for Honiton said, is to experiment to see whether we can make some improvements.
The Select Committee's proposal may not be perfect, but it is a reasonable compromise and it has the advantage of evolution from the present situation to one that most people would approve. I make one qualification of that point. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to suggest that all other Members should be virtuous and declare their hands to obtain a real answer from the Prime Minister, but that the Leader of the Opposition—those on the Treasury Bench should consider this point because in future the Conservatives may be an Opposition party—should be given special treatment. After the next general election it is not impossible that the present governing party will split into two roughly equal parties. A third or fourth party might also be of equal size. Is it seriously suggested that if one of those parties had one more Member of Parliament, it should automatically have six open-ended questions a week, while everybody else in the House was subject to different constraints? That would be absurd and I hope that we can reconsider that point.
The whole House should have an opportunity of thinking about Prime Minister's questions. It should not be left to the vested interests of the usual channels.
In a previous debate I quoted the resolution of the House of about 1780—when I was a student of the history of parliamentary procedure I was rather more accurate about my dates—which went something like, "The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished." I believe that the power of the party has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. The important speech made by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood leads to that conclusion.
I welcome some of the suggestions that have been made in the debate this evening. It makes very good sense to look again at the parliamentary year and I am glad that the Leader of the House is prepared to do so. An examination of our legislative programme, particularly the way in which it meshes, or does not at present, with the legislative programme of the European Parliament and of the European Commission would help us to achieve better scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr is precisely right that we must have some mechanism for post-legislative review. The idea that we wait for a change of Government, or for a certain Act of Parliament effectively to collapse, is absurd. We must have some better way of doing it. The hon. Gentleman said that the House must own its procedures. That is absolutely true. We do not, we should not and we must not let the Executive dominate the way in which we undertake our responsibility to scrutinise their work.
The very moving occasion in Westminster Hall was referred to earlier. I thought as I listened to President Mandela that he could and did pay due regard to our Victorian ancestors, particularly William Wilberforce, who achieved huge changes in this Chamber—it has since been slightly mucked about, unfortunately, but roughly this Chamber—precisely because it was not then dominated by the confrontational two-party system that


we suffer today. Of course, it is true that it was then the imperial Parliament and it had rather more power in the world, but that should be no excuse for us not to be prepared to examine again our more limited role today. Just as in the last century we were able to show that we could develop, evolve and improve our procedures so that we could be more immediately engaged with the great issues of the time, we can do so again today.
I, too, contrast tonight's slim attendance with the attendance last night. It is less, but clearly better. The outside world is hardly hanging on our every word tonight yet we are surely talking about the value that people get for their money. Is that not just as important as the money itself? I should hope so.
Parliament is as good as the media make it out to be. I regret that the written accounts of what actually happens in this place have dwindled almost to nothing since I came here in my first incarnation. The responsibility that is now laid on the broadcasting media must be greater than ever. I very much regret the fact, which has been recorded in early-day motion 1065 that the BBC is even now cutting the real-life reporting of what happens in this Chamber. There is plenty of comment, but not much factual reporting. I hope that the Government and the official Opposition will make representations on that basis.
The confidence and respect that individual Members of Parliament enjoy is probably no worse than it ever was. I often hear people in all parts of the country say that their local Member of Parliament, irrespective of party, is hard-working and conscientious and does this, that or the other. Collectively, however, our reputation is very low. The value for money that individuals give to their constituents is very great indeed, but the institution can hardly be said to be a good bargain.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In the five minutes available to me, I shall endeavour to refer to the remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). It is clear from the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the electorate do not think that the institution is good value, however much they may believe that their own Member of Parliament is good value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood referred to a previous Select Committee report. I had the privilege to serve on the Procedure Committee for three years between 1976 and 1979. I believe that he was referring to paragraph 1.6 of the first report of the Select Committee for the 1977–78 Session—HC588–1 97/9—which states:
We have approached our task not in the hope of making the job of Government more comfortable, the weapons of the Opposition more formidable, or the life of the backbencher more bearable, but with the aim of enabling the House as a whole to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern state for which they are answerable, and to make the decisions of Parliament and Government more responsive to the wishes of the electorate.
One of the problems of Parliament today is that for some years the wishes of the electorate have not been met by the Government. I would say that, of course, as a member of the Opposition, but for all sorts of reasons the problem is getting a little worse.
As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood, he gave an accurate description of some of the perceptions of the institution. He finished his speech by saying that the task was simple and that a relatively few adjustments to procedure were required, including the creation of pre-legislative committees, about which I agree. By that token, he suggested that the institution would somehow be almost magically transformed. I disagree because our parliamentary institution is rather like a complicated machine that has been built up over the years, adjusted here, added to there and had certain parts taken away. It is an instrument that can be played and used well, but it can also be abused.
Our current confrontational style, which has been publicised through the media, and the temptation to our colleagues on the Front Bench to use it thus, have meant that that potentially delicate and useable machine has been abused. There is a danger that it will continue to be so.
I shall conclude by referring to an example—in a sense, a parable—that I cited in an earlier intervention, which illustrates the problem in extremis. The essence of democracy is surely the choice of the electorate to choose not only the Member but a Parliament that pursues a particular line of policy. That is why some of us on both sides of the Chamber disagree with certain treaties: they constrain that choice.
It is also important that Members have an opportunity at least to present alternatives. That is why, whatever the Friday time, the private Member Bill is so important. It allows for the introduction of legislative proposals other than those of the Executive, which would otherwise have the monopoly on legislation. That opportunity is important and fundamental.
Tonight, we have before us the Question to adjourn. We are not deciding on pay or making a decision. When a decision has to be made, for one reason or another, attendance automatically goes up. We are merely deciding whether to adjourn.
For centuries, the House has had an opportunity for private Members to introduce a motion for a debate on any topic such as drugs or something that our constituents want debated. The topic is relevant to them, which is why the link between the constituent and Parliament, the ambience, is fundamental. The opportunity for such debate is now being destroyed.
I am sorry that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is not here because either the Committee did not protest at the time, or it connived at the elimination of the opportunity for Members to debate, and vote on, a motion of their choice. The elimination of private Members' motions was a partially invisible result of the adoption of the Jopling proposals. That deprived hon. Members of the opportunity to table motions such as the one about the decline of industry in London which I tabled when I had been in the House for two years. The opportunity for any hon. Member other than a member of the Government to table a motion based on opinion, which can be voted on, is a precious thing.
On 2 November, when the Jopling proposals were going to eliminate such opportunities, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I tabled two amendments that would have enabled us to do that very thing on four occasions each year—only four out of 16 days. Our proposal was defeated by 87 votes.


Funnily enough, all but two of those who opposed it—a large number did—were Conservative Members. Representatives of the Executive eliminated a fundamental democratic right, and I believe that an investigation of why that happened would answer some of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood has very properly raised.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who was not able to speak in the debate. Because procedure is a complicated subject, those who speak on it do so at length. I had prepared a lengthy speech myself, but [shall put it aside and, as one who is not an expert on procedure, make a couple of points that I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish me to make.
This morning, when President Mandela addressed us, we saw Parliament at its best. Many of us never believed that such an occasion would happen, and we will treasure the memory. Last night's debate was entirely different: it may have been necessary, but it did not improve Parliament's reputation. I know that the Leader of the House hopes that the same thing will never happen again, and perhaps it never will, but we should not forget that there is always the possibility of another vote of that kind.
I wish to make two points. The first concerns Select Committees. I served on the Agriculture Select Committee for five years. It was a very good Committee and we got on very well, but there are flaws in Select Committee procedure. For instance, I sometimes worry about the amount of expert help that Committees receive and about the quality of the experts employed by them, in comparison with that of civil servants. It would be wrong to expect a Government of any persuasion to give up their majority on Select Committees, but that in itself leads to problems.
The Agriculture Select Committee produced two of the most famous Select Committee reports in recent years. One is known in shorthand as "Edwina and the eggs"; the other recommended the investigation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. What worries me is the fact that, according to considerable evidence, when Labour Members pressed for a return to the BSE issue, the Conservative majority blocked that, apparently for political reasons. I accept that that is perfectly possible, but I feel that in such instances the minutes should be made public, so that people know that one party has prevented discussion of items that need to be investigated in reports.
As hon. Members have probably noticed, there has been a change in our voting procedures. Instead of our names being ticked off in the Lobbies, they are now crossed off. When I asked the Clerk why, I was told, "It is for the computer." However, he still had his pencil and paper. I think that we must re-examine the way in which we vote.
We have debated better use of parliamentary time. Going through the Lobby takes 15 minutes out of our debating time and often means that votes which should be held are not held because we do not want to waste time on procedure. I hope that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will look at that. I am delighted that he has returned to the Chamber.
The Opposition want a modern democratic Parliament. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) spoke about over-representation. My view is that that is a great

myth that will be used at some time to rob our constituents of the proper representation that they deserve. Even the most distinguished hon. Member can be wrong. We all read the first part of the review on parliamentary allowances and pay, but I am not sure how many hon. Members read the second part. It shows that there is a higher population—not electors—per representative in Britain than in other countries.
Of the 18 countries in the study, Britain was the fourth highest. We were behind the United States, but the USA has 51 state legislatures and when, that is taken into account, that country has a population of 32,000 per legislator. Perhaps in his calculations the right hon. Gentleman took the other place into account and, if he did, that worries me. I should not like the House to think that hon. Members do not represent enough people. However, we should represent them well.
This has been a good debate, free from rancour and I am sure that hon. Members have enjoyed it much better than Question Time. There is much to be said for Prime Minister's Question Time, but that is a personal view.

Mr. Newton: I agree that this has been a most interesting debate. [Interruption.] I am reminded that I need the leave of the House to speak for a second time, but the mood of the House does not seem to be confrontational or likely to stop me speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Even the Leader of the House always seek the House's permission.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall seek to adhere to it.
The debate has been rather longer on the analysis of problems than on suggested solutions. In one or two respects, the House may underestimate the extent to which matters are in its own hands. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) rightly said that the House must own its own procedures. It follows from that, to some degree, that whatever procedures we have will be used to do what the House wants. I have a couple of points to make.
First, there was endless debate about Prime Minister's Question Time. There is nothing to stop any hon. Member putting down closed questions to the Prime Minister and, of course, a few do that, but not many. I suspect that some of those who have demanded reform of Prime Minister's Question Time may be among those who are pleased to get an opportunity to ask an open-ended question to try to catch the Prime Minister out, which is what it comes to, rather that debating a serious matter. If the majority of hon. Members wanted to put closed questions they could do so, but how many put such questions into the ballot? I do not know the exact number but I am willing to bet that it is not many.
Secondly, hon. Members mentioned a post-legislative review. There is a case for that and there is nothing to stop Select Committees doing it now if they choose to make it a priority for their work. The procedure is there but the issue is whether people want to use it. I have a couple of additional observations but I apologise for not having time to mention all the speeches. I disagree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the


way that we vote. As in many legislatures, what happens around the Chamber is often at least as important as what happens in it and the dynamics of this place depend to a great extent of the mingling of hon. Members in the Lobby, which could probably not occur in any other way at other times of the day.
I must straightforwardly say—as someone who has been a Minister for 17 years—to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who made an engaging and thoughtful speech, that I do not recognise his picture of a Parliament that has become more and more a creature of the Government and in which Ministers do not need to worry about their own Back Benchers and about reactions in the House. That is not how it feels if one is a member of the Government.
I am genuinely not sure that, in the heated atmosphere in the run-up to a general election, experiments would either tell us much or be easy to agree because in practice every suggestion would be considered not in terms of, "Is this good for the House?", but, "How does it help or hinder our electoral chances?" That is not the time to experiment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be registered with Madam Speaker that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I wanted to make short contributions, that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was unselfish, but that long speeches by people who are unable to stay—I say it of my own Front-Bench spokesman—are unacceptable on an issue such as this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair notes the hon. Gentleman's comments and that some speeches were of long duration.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Asbestos

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

10 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am pleased to secure this debate on the Government's policy on asbestos. My initial concern arose when asbestos was discovered in two tower blocks in my constituency and in one in neighbouring Walthamstow, and last week I raised the matter in parliamentary questions to the Minister with responsibility for housing.
The Government do not properly recognise the burden on councils and housing associations when asbestos is found in their properties. Tenant safety must, of course, come first, but there is a serious knock-on effect for other tenants and for people waiting for improvement grants.
The Waltham Forest Independent showed the cost when it said that the most popular option among tenants was for
blocks to be knocked down
but added:
Rehousing the 270 tenants may take time. Housing officer Simon Hendey said there were funds to move 80 households this year"—
and that is on top of the £800,000 given to housing associations for 20 other homes, so there is a huge burden. The council is doing its best. It is preparing asbestos location drawings and keeping tenants informed.
I then attended a conference in Sheffield on 1 June organised by the Construction Safety Campaign. I was shaken by what I heard, and resolved to raise the matter in Parliament. It pointed out:
3000 to 3500 people in Britain are killed by asbestos every year. This will increase to 10,000 deaths a year in ten years.
Those most at risk are in the building industry—plumbers, electricians, carpenters and heating and ventilation engineers.
When the fatal disease takes hold—it does so among men mainly—their families suffer enormous hardship. Asbestos is responsible for more occupation-related deaths than any other cause. One in 10 building workers will die between the ages of 40 and 50. Asbestos exposure will kill more people in Britain than were killed in the armed forces during the second world war. It is beginning to reach bubonic plague proportions.
We are still importing asbestos. About 11,500 tonnes was imported last year. More than 126,000 tonnes has been imported in the past eight years.
Alan Dalton, author of "Asbestos Killer Dust", and the national health and safety co-ordinator for the Transport and General Workers Union, wrote to the Health and Safety Executive today spelling out the problems and solutions that are necessary. He says that there should be a ban on all forms of asbestos—at present, brown and blue asbestos are banned, but white asbestos should also be banned. He gives reasons for that. He quotes the American Journal of Public Health, which said:
it is prudent policy to treat chrysotile"—
white—
asbestos with virtually the same concern as the amphibole forms of asbestos.
Mr. Dalton stated:


In practice, in many cases … white, blue and brown asbestos are often mixed together. It is therefore impossible to distinguish between the different types … There are now safer substitutes for all forms of asbestos that are often technically more effective. Banning white asbestos would simplify the asbestos regulations, since there would no longer be the need for detailed guidance".
He believes that a complete ban on white asbestos would be
a progressive example of deregulation … It should be a legal requirement to identify, label and institute a management control programme of asbestos in all buildings.
Mr. Dalton says that there should be asbestos audits, with removal required if the asbestos is in a dangerous state or likely to be damaged. That audit should be a public document, available to employees, trade union representatives, firefighters and contractors.
I tabled a parliamentary question pressing for a national audit, and was told that the Government rely on public awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), in a parliamentary question, asked how much had been spent on the campaign to raise public awareness. The answer was, very little. In the four years 1990 to 1994, nothing was spent. In 1994–95, £469,700 was spent; last year, £2,000; and 1996 to date, just £5,500. That is inadequate, and the case for a national survey stands.
Asbestos should be removed by a specialist contractor licensed for all types, not just the most dangerous—all asbestos is dangerous. Mr. Dalton stated:
The asbestos licensing system must be tightened up and enforced
because it is
as easy to get an asbestos licence as a dog licence.
There are a lot of cowboy operators, yet only 13 licences have been revoked since 1983. It is not unknown for firms to contract out the work to self-employed operatives, then tell them to bring their own respiratory masks and equipment.
There is a huge shortage of health and safety inspectors. The Government refer to contacts and site visits rather than inspections. The HSE's target of 6 per cent. of asbestos removal sites is far too low. It often relies on written documentation that is poorly examined. In 1985, there were 2,700 health and safety visits, but the figure had fallen to 800 by 1994. In the four previous years, the number of visits had fallen to 400 a year.
The notification period for asbestos removal work is being reduced from 28 to 14 days, which is a retrograde step. Such work should be well planned, for safety's sake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley also asked how many prosecutions had been brought for breaching asbestos regulations. The reply referred instead to informations, of which there have been only 437 since 1986. Fines are ridiculously low, ranging from £100 to £9,000—but the higher figure is an exception, and clearly such fines are not a deterrent to contractors who are paid a lot of money for asbestos removal.
The HSE says that what really matters is the stigma of prosecution, not fines—but last year, the executive wanted more than £250,000 to name rogue companies. So much for stigma. If asbestos laws are broken, and workers and the public are exposed to asbestos dust, the individuals responsible should be imprisoned.
Alan Dalton says that asbestos face masks must be improved, because even top-of-the-range examples leak. Clydeside Action on Asbestos found the substance inside

a respirator, and the Transport and General Workers Union in Scotland has called for the Sabre Phantom respirator to be withdrawn from use. Even an HSE press release this month states that protection offered by respiratory protective equipment
can be very much less than would be predicted
from laboratory tests.
In a parliamentary answer, I was told that the masks are the responsibility of the manufacturers, and that they should carry out the research to improve the standard of their products. There is no pressure from the Government to obtain that improvement, and that is a disgrace.
There should be protection for asbestos sampling companies. They should be independent from the removal company, and should have a hot line to the HSE to report any abuses. There should be safer methods of disposal, better compensation for asbestos victims and action at European Union level. I was told in another parliamentary answer that the United Kingdom has not made any proposals for "concerted European Union action" on asbestos. We should be pressing for a total ban.
The Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases tells me that the Department of Social Security often unfairly refuses benefit to asbestosis sufferers. I do not have time to go into detail, but I am told that claims are often refused when there is no presence of asbestos bodies, even though those asbestos bodies do not carry well to the laboratory for tests.
Even when asbestos bodies are present, it might not be enough for the DSS to grant benefit. The DSS special medical boards delay awarding industrial disablement benefit, and, if an asbestosis sufferer dies, the payment is halved. That is a disgrace. The society said that the special medical boards should be investigated.
The compensation recovery unit claws back victims' benefit. Clydeside Action on Asbestos told me:
By 1994 the CRU was having a totally negative effect on any potential case and there were many instances where cases were abandoned rather than the injured parties, their widows and families having to face a long, tortuous process only to have the awards dashed from their hands.
In 1995, the Select Committee on Social Security made a clear recommendation. It said:
The Committee understands the particular and special case of people with asbestos related conditions. We believe that the special circumstances of asbestosis sufferers should be recognised. Because of the unique difficulties of pursuing claims and because of the high mortality rate of asbestos related sufferers, we believe that all recovery in these cases should cease at the earliest opportunity.
When Clydeside Action on Asbestos went to see the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), he said that the DSS wanted
one hundred per cent. of their pound of flesh.
That was a despicable response.
Under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, employers are required to have employers' liability insurance. Many of the companies go bankrupt or do not register the identity of their insurers. There should be a change in the law so that they have to do that. It would benefit the state, because it would not have to pay out the benefit. The insurers should be paying the compensation.
Greenpeace has contacted me about Bermuda, which is a United Kingdom dependent territory. There is a proposal to dump asbestos waste from the United States naval base at St. George's. The United Kingdom Government have been asked for assistance. If the waste is dumped at sea, as is suggested, it would be a precedent in breach of the London convention against the dumping of industrial waste at sea. Denmark's Environment Minister, Mr. Svend Aukin, said that would be
putting the health of the seas at risk.
He said that if the United States, the United Kingdom and Bermuda did this, it would be a
Bermuda triangle of irresponsibility.
There are even more asbestos issues. There is likely to be a great deal of asbestos in the Ministry of Defence housing that is to be sold off. Has its presence been recorded? That should be stated before any property is sold. Armed forces personnel who are exposed to asbestos are restricted in their ability to claim compensation. That is unfair.
In 1989, Westminster council moved homeless families into the Walterton and Elgin estates, knowing that the asbestos was in a dangerous state. A former chief executive of Cambridgeshire county council, John Barret, said that the families were put at risk despite
the clearest advice and instructions to the contrary,
and that the decision was
informally but powerfully taken by senior Conservative councillors".
Those councillors should face imprisonment.
Council workmen were also unprotected. The role of the HSE in this scandal was very poor, and should be examined.
Asbestos is in brakes. I asked a parliamentary question about that, to which the answer was that a survey in 1994 showed that 4,500 tonnes of white asbestos were used in brakes, and that mechanics who work on brake linings were at low risk if they follow HSE advice. That is a very big if. It went on to say that the UN Economic Committee for Europe suggested a prohibition on the use of asbestos in brake linings on or after 1 October 1998. It should be sooner. Where is the firm commitment to that from the UK and the European Union? They should come into line with that at the very least.
Asbestos is also in gutters. Again, I have asked parliamentary questions, but no assessment has been made of the risk. White asbestos is still used, even though other materials are more commonly used. If that is so, there should be no objection to a ban on the use of white asbestos in guttering. Many substitutes for asbestos are available and should be used. They are shown in pages 110 to 112 and appendix 3 of the book "Asbestos Killer Dust".
There is a major difference between the parties on this issue. The Conservative Government have not taken the dangers from asbestos seriously. The Labour party has. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Labour party spokesman on this subject, has put into writing our commitments: Labour will give employees greater protection against dangerous working conditions; safety representatives and trade union representatives will have improved rights in this field; the Health and Safety Executive will be strengthened, with new powers.
Labour will introduce a new crime of corporate manslaughter—if I do not get there first with a private Member's Bill. Labour will also make it easier for victims and their families to receive compensation. Most important—this is the clear blue water, or the clear white asbestos, between the parties—Labour will ban the importation of hazardous asbestos-based products.
Before that happens, I urge, even at this late stage, the Government to take this matter seriously, and to act at home and internationally on the dangers of asbestos.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): This is an important issue. I shall outline the policies that we have in place to address the important issues that arise from the use of asbestos.
The Government are well aware of the tragic legacy of the past use of asbestos, and the devastating effects it has had on the health of many people—including asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer. The Government recognise the public concern about exposure to asbestos and welcome this opportunity to reassure the House just how seriously we treat the issue.
Our strategy for controlling the risks from asbestos stems from the work of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos. The three-part strategy is, first, to prohibit the most dangerous types and uses of asbestos; secondly, to license the most dangerous types of work with asbestos; and, thirdly, strictly to control all other work with asbestos. That is achieved through regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, enforced by the HSE and local authorities.
Imports of blue and brown asbestos ceased in 1972 and 1980 respectively by voluntary agreement after their health effects became fully recognised. In 1985, European legislation banned the marketing and use of those forms of asbestos, the spraying of asbestos and the installation of asbestos insulation, and also required asbestos products to be labelled.
Since then, further Community legislation has expanded the prohibitions on the marketing and use of asbestos to a wide range of materials and products containing white asbestos. Perhaps it is easiest to describe those few uses of asbestos that are still allowed. The remaining uses are, in fact, mainly in asbestos cement, used to make products such as corrugated sheeting, and in friction products such as brake pads, gaskets and seals.
Substitutes for asbestos have been found for many of its original uses. The Government accept, as do our European colleagues, that there are a small number of uses for white asbestos that are critical for safety reasons for which no less hazardous substitutes are available—for example, brake linings in heavy goods vehicles and trains.
Although the current use of asbestos is severely limited, large quantities have been imported into the United Kingdom in the past and are still present in homes, public buildings and offices. That asbestos has not been removed because it is not intrinsically dangerous; it is exposure to asbestos fibres that causes a hazard to health. The risk from that exposure depends on the level of the fibres in the air and the type of fibre present. Asbestos materials that are not releasing fibres do not need to be removed as they do not pose a risk to health.
For that reason, it is Government policy that asbestos materials that are undamaged and are not releasing fibres should be managed in situ. Materials that are slightly damaged should be repaired and sealed or encapsulated. Only materials that are badly damaged or are likely to be disturbed or damaged should be removed.
A further reason for not removing asbestos materials from buildings is that removal in itself is a hazardous task. Levels of asbestos fibres in the air may be significantly raised during removal operations. In addition, disposal of asbestos waste is a significant problem. At present, all our asbestos waste is sent to landfill, so a policy to remove asbestos from buildings would put additional pressure on our landfill sites.
Government policy is to manage asbestos properly in situ wherever possible, but that message needs to be spread to workers and the public to minimise the risks to their health. My Department has made considerable efforts to that end for some years. Practical guidance from the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive is aimed at underpinning the legislative framework and controlling the risks to workers from exposure to asbestos.
I know that the HSE is determined to maintain its tough enforcement policy on asbestos to ensure that the regulations are observed. For example, the House may be aware that a demolition contractor who flouted the regulations was gaoled by the courts in January.
In addition to its important enforcement role, the HSE has been actively working to increase our knowledge about the risks from asbestos. In many cases, it is Government-funded research that has filled the gaps in our knowledge and helped us to deliver effective policies for tackling the asbestos problem, which unfortunately will be with us for some years to come. The HSE's successful asbestos awareness campaign is a case in point.
The Government consider that the regulatory regime is effective in protecting the health of those who work with asbestos, if it is properly observed. Guidance from the HSE and the Department of the Environment includes the advice that employers should locate, identify and keep a record of all asbestos in their premises, and ensure that all workers and contractors who are likely to come into its presence are aware of its presence.
Further, we are concerned that some specific groups of workers might still be at risk because they are perhaps unaware that they are working on asbestos materials, or are not as aware as they should be of the strict precautions the regulations actually require. Those workers include building maintenance workers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, computer cable installers and gas fitters.
The HSE's national publicity campaign, which began in February 1995, reminded those workers to look out for what is termed the "hidden killer". It reminded them to take strict precautions to protect themselves. This year, the HSE is shifting the focus of its awareness campaign to workplace building owners and managers, under its "good health is good business campaign", which has been welcomed by all sides of industry. We are working to raise awareness of the risks of exposure to asbestos fibres and of how best to manage asbestos materials, and we are issuing information leaflets to householders and more detailed guidance to local authorities and building managers.
We are also funding a project to review the risks to health from exposure to fibrous materials in the environment. The outputs of that work will be published early next year, alongside a further revision of our guidance on asbestos materials in buildings. In addition, we shall issue new, more detailed guidance for householders and a technical manual for environmental health officers.
The Government will continue to encourage the use of substitutes for asbestos products wherever possible. The current controls have been agreed throughout the European Union, and we shall work with our colleagues in Europe to explore the question whether tighter restrictions are now justified.
Existing asbestos materials are a greater problem, and need to be managed correctly. The Department of the Environment has done a great deal already to raise awareness and to ensure that asbestos materials are properly managed. I assure the House that those efforts will continue, so as to ensure that risks to workers and the public alike are minimised, as they should be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o ' clock.